Ah a v4 RG Lhd he PICK OKC Eb . PEL ae SORE) « PL SCRA) ruse ide hi a ot fi i mt ea ie a) +e i ene UU BUM Ma or meta re we Ba eS ee) om a oa ani f hey us ae beater nea ct eerie pate EOL eae ere i vr A iY aa 2 4 aK Sra Fst pbaest| ee RRM a ah Ago aie eaeeet i ean en au 4 akan ht ue WOK Mat PA i Pei Pas Men its na A A RUM sean ae " wha at SMM TOMA ne Rens aM Aint AMA aA Na lpey et Antes dvnc beat Sygate Suen : Baa it} tee. CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY FINE ARTS LIBRARY NAC 6827 .B77N79 ino PAR ROS, SMRPONE a! RW ahead, 2 AM a GA i PS aA MBPT.) BNR AIS Mow gh Gab RA ORIN a an ¥ Sean we wh ma 4 jin 74g if eee ee “— ne ‘a Brio ORT AMY ORAUL.!CSGOMPANY LEGEND :— = - Cy Sfrazk Proposed City Streels fréandoned Cy Siree’s Puvale Streok . : SMILES Ratlroad Tracks eA, da » Streef Car Trggke ONO Parks & Playgrounds Proposed Farks Private Zand in rhe ee Ka a “S) Cemeseries Co Walter Frreas 4) #2, TPES cs Manifacioring Fro erly = =< Sehooks & School Grounas bey Fire. Slations MMB R42 & Quast -Puble Begs. “a hy a oe 9 z sz S 9 x , &. 5.4 4? BRIDGEPORT Yk LicnTHOUSE MAP OF ERIDGEPORT, CONN: PREPARED FROM OFFICLAL RECORDS BY W.W-S TARR— CITY SURVEYOR, ‘AUG, 1906. Neate Mase seers _ SOO — Ss fax 9 “Giemsa” Date added to make map basis for Proposed C ily Plan August 1914 Office of Sok fYolen City Planner Flarvard Oyuare Cambréa, ©. Aa ve. BETTER CITY PLANNING FOR BRIDGEPORT SOME FUNDAMENTAL PROPOSALS TO THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION BY JOHN NOLEN CONSULTANT ON CITY PLANNING WITH A. REPORT ON LEGAL METHODS OF CARRYING OUT THE CHANGES PROPOSED IN THE CITY PLAN FOR BRIDGEPORT BY FRANK BACKUS WILLIAMS OF THE NEW YORK BAR 1916 ae Gs AF A-3TTILO FL2 cy). MAG @er2a7 B77 Au FF COPYRIGHT, 1916, By City Pitan ComMIssIon, BRIDGEPORT, CONN. THE BREWER-COLGAN Co., PRINTERS, BRIDGEPORT, CONN, RESOLUTION CREATING CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Resolved, That the mayor be and hereby is empowered to appoint a committee of eight citizens, which shall include a representative from the Manufacturers’ Association, the Board of Trade, and the Business Men’s Association of our city, which committee shall be known as ‘“The City Planning Commission of Bridgeport’; the mayor, during his term of office, to be ex- officio an additional member of said commission, with all the rights and privileges of other members, and the power to fill vacancies. Said com- mission shall receive no compensation and have no authority to expend any of the city funds, except such as may be specifically appropriated by the Board of Apportionment and Taxation or the Common Council, from time to time; nor shall said commission have any authority to bind or commit the city of Bridgeport to any plan, policy or contractual obligation, unless specifically authorized to do so hereafter. The duties of said commission shall be to in- quire into all existing conditions relative to traffic, streets, docks, transporta- tion and freight facilities, trolley lines, parks, housing plans, and other kindred matters: also as to the direction and character of the city’s probable future development and growth, both as to territory, population and industrially, and to prepare and recommend to this body a City plan or plans covering the above subjects in preparation for the future of this city, to the end that its development and both its public and private works may be laid out and executed with intelligent foresight and consistency and to the best advantage of its present and future inhabitants. Adopted August 18th, 1913. MEMBERS OF THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION BRIDGEPORT, CONN. MAYOR C. B. WILSON, EX-OFFICIO CHARLES D. DAVIS, CHAIRMAN BERNARD KEATING, TREASURER ARTHUR M. MARSH, SECRETARY HENRY A. BISHOP GEORGE M. EAMES WALTER B. LASHAR FORMER MEMBERS: FREDERICK CEDERHOLM FRED ENOS EUGENE F. RUSSELL iv PRELIMINARY REPORT Mr. Nolen’s first report of progress, accompanied by data, surveys, maps, diagrams, and plans, covering the main subjects of investigation and study to date, was issued in 1915 including a detailed report upon Bridges across the Pequonnock River. FINAL REPORT In connection with this final report to the City Plan Commission, attention is directed to the earlier special letters and reports which constitute a part of these recommendations. Some parts of the Preliminary Report are herein re- printed. LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS The funds which made possible the work of the City Plan Commission were con- tributed by public-spirited citizens and corporations whose names are given below, in varying amounts aggregating $4,370.00, followed by two appropriations from the City of Bridgeport, one of $5,000 in 1914, and one of $1,000 in 1916. American Chain Company American Graphophone Co. Ashmun, Bernard I. Automobile Club of Bridgeport Bartram, J. Percy Birdseye, Isaac W. Bishop, Henry A. Bishop, Nathaniel W. Bradbury, Frederick L. Bridgeport Board of Trade Bridgeport Brass Co. Bridgeport Business Men’s Ass'n. Bridgeport Gas Light Co. Bridgeport Hardware Mfg. Corp. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. Bridgeport Land & Title Co. Bridgeport Trust Co. Bryant Electric Co. Bullard Machine Tool Co. Burnham, William E. Burns Company, The Burns & Bassick Co., The Burr & Knapp Burritt, Arthur W. Crawford, George E. Connecticut National Bank Davis & Hawley Co. Dodge, Marcellus Hartley Farist, J. Windsor First-Bridgeport National Bank Ford, Theodore B. Godfrey, Jonathan Hamilton, Harry H. Handy & Harman Harrall, Edward W. Hawley Hardware Co. Hawley, Samuel M. Hicks Realty Co. Hincks, William T. Howland Dry Goods Co. Hubbell, Harvey, Inc. Keating, Bernard Kirk, William P- Lashar, Walter B. Locomobile Company of America Loewith, Sigmund Marsh, Arthur M. Meigs & Co. Neithercut, Richard I. Nettleton, Henry H. Nichols, William J. Pierce, Bradford D., Jr. Read, D. M., Co. Salt’s Textile M'f'g. Co. Siemon Hard Rubber Co. Singer M’f’g. Co. Spring Perch Co. Staples, James & Co. Stoddard, Mrs. Goodwin Terry, Alfred H. Thorne, Jonathan Union Metallic Cartridge Co. United Illuminating Co. Waldo, Charles G. Warner Bros. Co. Watson, T. L., & Co. Wheeler, Archer C. Wheeler, William B. Wheeler & Howes Co. CONTENTS BETTER CITY PLANNING FOR BRIDGEPORT. Page Preface by the City Plan Commission.............cs:ccsssesseeeseeeees Xv I. “Bitnoduenon: gusyadaniuncnabieeea eae I Ll: Main lines of communication, including some reference tO city transit probletisixccnsnsdcecacnvinrcasverscesavasieveversers 7 II]. |The Down Town District; its chief centers and proposed SERCEL ClreanWes: Seats sa uwiacicszasepahisaeen dew eunsondiies ed diuatsivenaenteses 17 IV. The subdivision of city land into blocks and lots. Types and restrictions proposed......c...csscccsssccessseceseeesetecesecsesees 4| y Different districts for different uses, showing location and DPIOPOSEM - FEStKICHO Nisin seresisnaynsnewsecarqonnccasrceneasienciasaawdaed 7\ VI. Parks, playgrounds, and other open spaces, giving location, use, and examples of appropriate development.............. 89 Wil: “CeOnGitSIOth: a snercuassiesneloswatomuta tun scloeaieseeasieanuiaennar 109 Appendix, consisting of certain reports of the Commission to the Common Council, viz., Bailehnripe Tees) gv ash das acdsee eee en 113 Boston Ave. Extension to North Main St..............::ccee08 114 Relief of Main St. traffic congestion............cccccccceseeseeeees 116 LEGAL METHODS OF CARRYING OUT THE CHANGES PRO- POSED IN THE CITY PLAN FOR BRIDGEPORT Tit Oth isco ciescesiccivne vaieuakasei geata dau teados jusueacnsua es danaaeasevaaass 123 I. The city planning agency cccsccuwstaderscsiceonmsanmeeeoniins 125 II. = Specific city planning powerS..........:cccecccsssssssseeesseeeeseneeeees 128 IN. Financing city plamming).........cc.caecccsscoccesverssndcenssorensvassivienese 150 IV; “Greater Bridce ptt scccesusitentnseansaciccssiesteasenstanenocodetiaacaonsonions 157 vii LIST OF PLANS AND SKETCHES. Civic Center Group (Sketch in Color)* ...............0005 Frontispiece Page Curve of Population, Diagram............ 0... e teenies 4 Proposed General City Plan, Bridgeport.............0.0. 0000000 ue 6 Main Thoroughfares, Existing and Proposed, Diagram.............. 8 Map of Bridgeport and Adjacent Towns. ............0. cee eeeeece 10 General Plan for Proposed Development, Bridgeport............... Wl Residential Street Sections... 1... 0... cece eee eee ence ees 13 Waterfront Street Section . 0.0... 0. 0c cc cee eee ee ent enone 15 General Plan of Down Town District... ......0.0. 000 eee eee eens 16 Birds’ Eye View of Proposed Civic Group, Sketch* ................. 30 Proposed Education Group, Bridgeport, Sketch* ...............06. 32 Type of Railroad Approach, Proposed, Sketch*® ............000005- 34 Proposed State Street Bridge with Railroad Station Sketch* .......... 35 Theoretical Diagram, Main Lines of Communication................ 39 Lot and Block Plans, typical of Bridgeport............-.-.2+0000- 44 Proposed arrangement of Typical Blocks. ........ 0.000 e eee eee 45 Cottage Type of House. proposed, Sketch*® .............. 02.0006. 46 Terrace Row Type of House proposed, Sketch* ..................-. 47 Survey of North East Section of Bridgeport... .......... 0.000000. 56 General Plan of North East Section........... 0... 0. eee eee eee 57 Industrial Waterfront, Bridgeport, Sketch* .................000005 70 Range in Land Values, Diagram... ... 6.6.0... 00 cece eee eee eee 80 Present Building Distribution, Diagram................. 0.02. e eee 82 Proposed Building Zones, Diagram... ... 1.6.0.2... cee eee cece 83 Parkway and Boulevard Sections. ......... 0... cece eee eee eee 95 Existing Park Areas, Diagram... 1... 6.0.0 ccc cee eee teens 98 Proposed Park System, Diagram... .. 2.0... 60 cece eee ee ees 99 Museum Building in Education Group, Sketch* ................... 108 Survey Map of Bridgeport for Basis of City Plan......... Inside front cover General City Plan showing conditions, changes and new planning within present city lines, in color........... Inside back cover General Plan of Down Town District, showing changes. .... . Facing page 23 Map showing Public Utilities of Bridgeport and adjacent Towns (in color) 2.0... 00. cee eee eee eens Facing page 58 *Sketch prepared by Franz Herding of New York City. viii PHOTOGRAPHIC AND OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS. Page Map of Bridgeport, 1858 ...... 0.0... ccc ccc ee eens Xx View of Bridgeport, 1875 1.0... 0.0... cece eee eee eens 2 Robert Street, St. Paul, before widening. ..............002 cee eee 18 Robert Street, St. Paul, after widening............ 00000 eeeeee 19 Fairfield Avenue, showing encroachments ............ 000000 ee eue 20 Wide Business Street, Denver. ......... 00 ce eee cee eee eens 21 State Street east from Main Street. ...... 0... 0.0. e eee ee eee 24 Arcade in Brussels, Belgium... ... 0.20... cece eee ee eects 26 Business District and Municipal Pier from Stratford Avenue Bridge.... . 27 Railroad Station, Bridgeport. ........... 00. cee cece eee tenes 28 Railroad Station, Scranton, Penna.............0 000 cece eee ee aee 29 City-Hall. “Albany; Ni Yoo oe biees ie GS AGG eae een eee 31 Cleveland Museum of Art, Sketch. ..... 0... 0c e ccc eee eens 36 Grouping of Public Buildings, Springfield, Mass. ................... 37 Parked Extension of Broad Street ........ 0.0.00. ccc eee tenes 38 Capitol at Rome s.4.6 c22.2 6845005 os Se ee ee PEE Re ees 38 Street Scenes, Stratford, Conn. ......... 0.0 cee ee ete eens 40 New Houses, Remington Arms Company ....... Wate ae eee ated ees 42 Old Type Houses, Bridgeport. ........0. 0. ee eee eee eee eens 43 Housing and Development Scheme, East Bridgeport................- 48 Reilley Street, Bridgeport... 1.0.0... 0c cee cece cece eee eees 52 Interior Reilley Street Block ....... 0.0... cece eee ee eee eee eens 52 Undesirable Types of Old Houses and New Apartments, Bridgeport.... 54 Houses, Norton Grinding Company, Worcester, Mass. .............. 59 Ellen Wilson Homes, House Plan and Elevation................... 61 Economic Construction, Forest Hills Gardens, Long Island.......... 63 Improved Housing Association, New Haven, Conn.............+.+-. 65 Plan of Neponset Garden Village. ... 0.6... cece ee cee enn 69 West Shore, Pequonnock River ........... 200 c eee cee e eee eens 72 Dilsseldart Watertrant: 65546434. ags0ee Sik bad wd owe eek eens ee 72 East Shore, Pequonnock River. .........0.. ccc cece eect ee neeee 73 Ditsseldox? Waterinant: canis Gaiuaccnicdpediawewsskesr eee 73 West Shore, Pequonnock River .........000 000 cece eee eens 74 Dresden. River Pronk cui coepeuiGsnergeggcae oe Sanus crowns 74 East Shore, Pequonnock River ........... 0c ccc eee eee eens 75 Mainz, View of the Rhine ............ 000 ccc cece eee eens 75 Bush Terminal Railroad Yard ..........0 0.000 e cece eee eee 76 Bush Terminal Plant froma Balloon ............00 0-0 e ce eee eens 76 Factories, Remington Arms Company ............ 000000000 ee 1.6 78 Municipal Lumber Piers, Baltimore ..........0.. 0000 ee ee ee eee ees 78 Pequonnock River from East Washington Avenue Bridge............- 84 Locomobile Company from boundary Seaside Park. ...........+-+6+% 84 Lake Torpedo Boat Works from Long Island Sound................ 84 Lordship Boulevard looking toward Bridgeport.................-- 85 Seaside: Park. «.% «94-500 Sawer ee eee Mace ee eal a ela oles esis 88 Beardsley Park? := 65s ayesitiwe an eens arated ors eels eleteinleiidnts avetanlals 90 Rose Garden, Elizabeth Parle Hartlord: 240% deacon cdo duoaanianteae 92 Water Sports Carnival, Riverside Park, Hartford.................. 92 Chicago Boulevard Scenes ........ 0.0 c eee eee ee ee eee eeas 94 Terrace Playground, Pope Park, Hartford ...................0005 96 Public Schools Field Day, Elizabeth Park, Hartford................ 96 Pope Park Playground and Athletic Field, Hartford................ 96 Bowling on the Green, Colt Park, Hartford...................00. 96 Pope Park, Shop Baseball Diamond............ 00.0000 cc eee eaee 96 Tennis, Pope Park, Hartford... 2... 0... ccc cee eee 96 Waterfront Development, Stratford, Ontario. .................-00% 102 Dublin Custom House. ........ 00.000: cece eee cent eee eeens 105 Dublin Riverfront Development.............. 000000 cue cee e eee 106 Anne Hathaway Cottage, Beardsley Park, Bridgeport.............. 107 LIST OF SURVEYS, MAPS, DIAGRAMS AND PLANS. COMPLETE LIST OF SURVEYS, MAPS, ETC., PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CITY PLANNING STUDIES Directory Map of Bridgeport, Conn. 1913. l. 2. Map of Bridgeport, Conn. 1912. 3. Map of Bridgeport, Conn. Prepared from official records. 4. U.S. Geological Survey Connecticut, New Haven Sheet. 5. U.S. Geological Survey Connecticut, Bridgeport Sheet. 6. U.S. Geological Survey Connecticut, Norwalk Sheet. 7. U.S. Geological Survey Connecticut, Danbury Sheet. 8. U.S. Geological Survey Connecticut, Derby Sheet. 9. North Shore of Long Island Sound, East Bridgeport to Fairfield. 10. Bridgeport Harbor, Conn. Main Harbor. Sheet No. 1. 11. Bridgeport Harbor, Conn. Outer Harbor. Sheet No. 2. 12. Bridgeport Harbor, Conn. Burr and Cedar Creeks, Sheet No. 3. 13. Bridgeport Harbor, Conn. Black Rock Harbor. Sheet No. 4. 14. Bridgeport Harbor, Conn. Pequonnock River, Sheet No. 1. 15. Bridgeport Harbor, Conn. Pequonnock River. Sheet No. 2. *16. Map of Bridgeport, Conn. with information necessary for basis of City Plan. 17. Map showing City Districts. 18. Plan showing development of existing blocks. (1) Willard St., Pembroke to Hallett Sts. (2) Armstrong Place. 19. Broad Street Extension. 20. Study for State Street Bridge. 21. Survey of location for Stratford Avenue Bridge. 22. Survey of location for Stratford Avenue Bridge with grades shown in pencil. 23. Survey and valuation map for area of Bridge Approaches. 24. Rider giving extra information for survey No. 23. 25. Preliminary Study for Bridge Approaches. / 26. Alternative studies for proposed bridge location at Fairfield Avenue or State Street. 27. Sketch showing Volume, Origin and Destination Stratford Avenue Bridge Traffic, July 17, 1914. *Indicates that survey, map, diagram, sketch or plan is being reproduced in this Report. xi 28. 29. 30. #31. 32. 33. 34, 35. 36. 37. * 38. 39. 40. 4l. #42 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. #59): 56. 57. 58. #59. 60. 61. Diagram showing Volume of Traffic using Stratford Avenue Bridge originating and terminating at each city district, July 17, 1914. 7 A.M. to 7 P. M. Diagram showing Volume of Traffic using Stratford Avenue Bridge originating and terminating at each city district, July 18, 1914. 7 A. M. to 7 P. M. Preliminary Plan for New Bridge Locations and Approaches. Curve of Population. 1830-1950. Diagram showing existing main traffic ways with a few important connections. Diagram showing Radial System of Streets with Centre at Park Avenue and State Street. Building Permits. June 15, 1911-1914. Shown by one year periods. Building Permits. June 15, 1911-1914. Diagram showing Business Sections. Diagram of School Locations. Diagram showing Existing Park Areas. 1914. Diagram showing Proposed Park System. Business Permits. June 15, 1911-14. Shown by one year periods. Map City of Bridgeport, Conn. 1912. City of Bridgeport, Conn. and adjacent towns east and west. Plan showing distribution of Population. Map of land owned by U. M. C. Co. of Bridgeport, Conn. General Diagram of New Bridge Locations and Approaches. Map showing Valuation of Principal Blocks Affected by Proposed New Bridge Locations and Approaches. General Diagram of Bridge Locations and Approaches showing mini- mum land taking to be considered. Diagram showing comparison of bridge connections at Fairfield Ave- nue and State Street. Preliminary Study for New Bridge Locations and Approaches showing minimum amount of land taking. Diagram showing comparative value of routes from Fairfield Avenue via Nichols and Ann Streets. Fairfield and Vicinity. Map of Stratford, Conn. Plan showing Distribution of Population between ages of 5 and 21. Key Plan to accompany Industrial Survey. Range in Land Values. Diagram based on figures supplied by the Board of Assessors. Relative duration of different winds. Plan showing station locations used in Traffic Count of July 17th and 18th. : North Shore of Long Island Sound. Milford to Bridgeport, Conn. General Plan for Proposed Development. Bridgeport and adjacent towns east and west. U. S. Geological Survey, Connecticut. Four Sheets. Freight Routes from Whiting Street Freight Sheds: Sept. 21, 1914. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. *68. #69. *70. *71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77: *78. #79, *80. #81. *82. *83. #84, #85. #86. *87. 88. 89. 90. #91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. *100. *101. 102. 103. 104. Freight Routes from Water Street Freight Sheds: Sept. 22, 1914. Map showing general location of Proposed Building Districts. Theoretical diagram of Main Lines of Communication. Stages of Development in block between Reilly and Willard Streets. Plan showing Public and Semi-public Property. Plan showing Public and Semi-public Buildings. Present Building Distribution. Residential Street Sections. Minor, Main and Through. Parkway and Boulevard Sections. Waterfront Street Section. Fairfield Avenue and Grove Street connection. Maplewood Avenue extension to Grand Street. Composition of Population. Composition Foreign Born Population. Key Plan showing location of lot and block studies. Lot and Block Study Beardsley Park Section. Lot and Block Study Brooklawn Section. Lot and Block Study Barnum Section. Lot and Block Study East End Section. Lot and Block Study North End Section. Lot and Block Study Maplewood Section. Lot and Block Study Yellow Mill Section. Ist Residential Zone. ‘ 2nd Residential Zone. Single-family Houses. 2nd Residential Zone. Two-family Houses. Tenement Zone. Survey of Streets in vicinity of Shelton School. Study of re-arrangement of streets in vicinity of Shelton School. Growth of Building Operations. Proposed Building Zones. New Bridge Location and Approaches as recommended by City Plan Commission to Bridge Commission. Exhibit No. 3. New Bridge Locations and Approaches as recommended by City Plan Commission to Bridge Commission. Exhibit No. 4. Bridgeport Harbor, Conn. Burr and Cedar Creeks. Sheet No. 3. Revised lines. Proposed Business District. East and West Thoroughfares. Proposed Bridge Site. Thompson-Arctic Streets. Study of Tentative Bridge Location “‘B’’ and Approaches. Block Plan of U. M. C. holdings. Town Farm and vicinity. General Plan of North-east Section. General ‘City Plan showing conditions, changes and new planning within present city lines. School Statistics. Street Paving in Business District. General Plan made on photographic enlargement of negative of Plan No. 16. xiii 105. 106. #107, 107A. *108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. #115. *116. *117. Proposed Extension of John Street. Down Town Section. Property Valuations. General Plan Down Town District showing Street Extensions, widen- ings and building groups. General Plan Down Town District showing Street Extensions and Widenings. Dotted lines show where existing conditions have been changed. Survey Northern Section of Bridgeport with field notes. Used as a basis for No. 100. Existing Conditions Survey of North-east Section. Original Plotting of Down Town District on manila paper. Street Paving in Business District. Down Town District. Tracing of No. 110 with additions. Street Sections to accompany plan for Down Town District. Down Town District. No. Main Street between Wall Street and Washington Avenue. Main Thoroughfares on blue print of General Plan. Down Town District Improvements shown in diagram form. Diagram showing Proposed Park System. Final. xiv PREFACE BY THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION! The report of Mr. John Nolen to the City Plan Commission con- tained in this book is his final report under the present contract for his services. It is not a final report on the subject, for the planning of a live and rapidly growing city is never final. If a City Plan Commis- sion in some permanent form is not established as a constituent part of our city government, there is grave danger that whatever merit this volume may contain will be laid aside and lost, and what- ever faults it has will not be corrected. We should not fail to profit by the experience of a neighboring Connecticut city which procured an excellent city plan report, but with little benefit, apparently for lack of such a permanent official body. Without it, the private interests of individuals, frequently short-sighted and not always unselfish, will, in future as in the past, be vigorously asserted and will probably deter- mine the development of Bridgeport, while the interests of the general public and of future generations will be left without an advocate equally equipped for their successful defence. Mr. Nolen’s work has been most thorough, patient, and able. His relations with the Commission have at all times been agreeable and harmonious. Naturally, differences in judgment and opinion have existed. In regard to certain details they have remained, as some of the footnotes to be found in the Report indicate. In the large features of the work, however, the Commission, after careful study and full discussion, concur with him. The proposed Educational Center near the new High School is approved and recommended. It does not call for extended comment at this time, since such development would be the work of several years and is already proceeding. The Civic Center is of greater and more immediate consequence. A new City Hall must be had within the next few years. The present building, as well as the Police Building, is overcrowded and so far from sufficient that the Board of Education, the Health Department and Fire Board are paying rent for quarters elsewhere. The present City Hall should become a Hall of Records, so as to leave the Town Clerk’s, the Probate Office and other records near the banks and the real estate and lawyers’ offices. The other city offices may as well, or *This preface is supplemented by footnotes throughout the text of Mr. Nolen’s Report. XV better, be elsewhere, and the location of the next City Hall, with the attendant development of a suitable Civic Center at Park Avenue as recommended by Mr. Nolen, is approved by this Commission, for reasons fully set out in this Report. Those citizens to whom, from long habit of doing business in the close compass of the present down- town district, such a change seems radical or revolutionary, we ask to keep in mind that we are not planning for the past, but for Bridgeport as it will develop for the ensuing fifty years. The present business district is much too restricted in area for the city that is to be. Already it is congested to a degree well night intolerable. If a new City Hall should be built near the present one, as some have suggested, it will tend to make this congestion permanent, for no street widenings sufficient for the future can be made in this district without prohibitive expense. Bridgeport must appreciate that in order to provide for 250,000 inhabitants as we should, we must discard the single business street of the village stage of development and add new business territory. This means, almost necessarily, expansion west- erly. Our opinion is further supported by the result of the independent investigation of the Library Board concerning the site of the new cen- tral library. We are permitted to say that while the Board is not ofh- cially committed to final decision, the views of many of its members are strongly in favor of a location between State Street and Fairfield Avenue in the neighborhood of St. John’s Church. The new library will doubtless be under construction in the near future. With that building and an adequate City Hall, properly laid out and set with suffi- cient space and suitable surroundings, the present generation can realize and enjoy with justifiable pride the commencement of a new era in Bridgeport’s history. Attention is called to the detailed reports of the Commission to be found in the Appendix, especially with reference to the proposed changes in streets for relief of the Main Street congestion, and to the layout of Boston Avenue Extension from the Glenwood Avenue bridge to North Main Street. These are examples of the sort of work to be done in future by a permanent City Planning Board. Mr. Nolen in his Preliminary Report recommended the general lines of new street development, the Boston Avenue extension being a part of it. Practi- cal working out of such development, the exact route to be followed, the cost, the order in which the various features should be taken up, are all local questions which he cannot and ought not to settle, and which are properly the concern of a City Planning Commission, which would be able, as a continuous body well acquainted with the whole plan, to deal with each particular problem in co-ordination with ulti- mate aims and so with the best effect upon the City’s interests, Xvi In the Appendix there will be found also the urgent recommenda- tion to the Council not to yield to the requests of property owners for the discontinuance of building lines already established. Nothing could be more short-sighted than to grant such requests, which usually appear just as residence districts are changing into business uses and the full width of the street is obviously needed. The judgment of the Commission in regard to some other parts of Mr. Nolen’s report will be found in various notes through this vol- ume. His recommendations upon which our judgment is not ex- pressed are those which do not call for such comment, or which require more time and further consideration, such as the limitation of the height of buildings, the zoning of the City, and other proposals. The special report presented upon the legal aspects of the sit- uation, by Frank B. Williams, Esq., of the New York Bar, is the work of a man who has given special and expert attention to the very modern law which is now developing in connection with scientific city planning, especially to the novel subject of building zones, such as New York City has just adopted with universal approval and the expecta- tion of great benefit; the subject of excess condemnation, by which cities are enabled to take more land than is needed for a specific im- provement, and thus control the neighborhood and reduce the cost; and other interesting topics. The thanks of the City are due to Mr. Williams, not only for his able work, but by reason of the fact that the remuneration which he was willing to accept was so small as to make his work largely a public service for Bridgeport. The Commission wishes also to mention the work of Mr. Franz Herding, of New York City, who prepared the color sketches to illus- trate some of the proposed improvements. The Commission have devoted a large amount of hard work to the preparation of this Report in the hope that with the study of its pages by those of our citizens who are public-spirited and thoughtful for Bridgeport’s future, some permanent good would remain. If such citizens will read and carefully consider, the work will not have been done in vain, for its value to the City’s future depends less upon approval or disapproval of the plans here presented than upon its calling out a full and widespread discussion, and action accord- ingly. Nothing could be more timely. A great future is in our grasp if we will rise to the opportunity with the purpose that it shall be great in other respects than size. If we do not, we shall have size only and regret it. xvii Problems of housing, health, recreation and street traffic are para- mount and immediate. Housing and health seem now in a fair way toward solution. The others have hardly been begun, although values of land available for parks and playgrounds are constantly increasing and street congestion, already almost unbearable, is daily more costly to all concerned. Within, a few months the General Assembly will be in session. It will not have another session until 1919. Anything in reason which the city asks can doubtless now be had and the Commission earnestly recommends that Bridgeport obtain all the powers that are necessary or might be useful in solving the problems that confront the City. The Report is made by the Commission with grateful and hearty thanks to the numerous officials and others who have assisted, and to the contributors whose gifts for the purpose made the work possible. A list of the names of contributors will be found elsewhere, together with a statement of the sums appropriated by the City. THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, CHARLES D. DAVIS, Chairman MAYOR C. B. WILSON, Ex Officio HENRY A. BISHOP GEORGE M. EAMES BERNARD KEATING, Treasurer WALTER B. LASHAR ARTHUR M. MARSH, Secretary Bridgeport, Connecticut, October 1, 1916. xviii Map of Bridgeport, 1858 xX BETTER CITY PLANNING FOR BRIDGEPORT I. INTRODUCTION No other city in the United States has the opportunity of Bridge- port. During the last two years the city has grown by leaps and bounds. As a result of the European conflict and the great war or- ders placed in Bridgeport, it has become a big new world arsenal, the so-called ‘‘Essen’” of America. But we may now ask, what has been the character of its increase in industries and population? And have the results upon the city as a whole been mainly good or bad? Why did these new industries choose Bridgeport as their headquarters, and would they or other large factories settle there if they were free again to choose? What may still be done in the way of physical planning to benefit the city? These are pertinent questions for those interested in city planning, for they directly affect the future of the city, looked at as a permanent business concern. Before war was declared in Europe, Bridgeport had a population of about 102,000. Today it has nearly 150,000, a phenomenal increase of nearly 50 per cent in twenty months. It has not yet reached its maximum, and this gain will undoubtedly continue until the city has at least 200,000 population. It has been said that a new man is em- ployed in Bridgeport every ten minutes and one is tempted to inquire what is being done every ten minutes to provide this new citizen with the essentials of city life? The increase of population is, of course, the direct result of the increase of industries. One concern, it has been publicly stated, has made an investment in Bridgeport in new factor- ies, land, machinery, etc., of $20,000,000 or more. Other local in- dustries have grown proportionally. The interest of the City Plan Commission, naturally, is in inquiring what have been the results of this industrial expansion? Wages have risen; but so have rents, the price of real estate, and the cost of living. Is there a net gain? Hotels, theatres, and moving picture shows have done a big business, and shops of all kinds have prospered. But is there more recreation or more real prosperity? Ain illustration of some of the actual results can be had from a concrete example :— A laborer at one of the manufacturing plants in Bridgeport I CITY OF - BRIDGEPORT CURVE OF POPULATION 1550 | 1660 Le, 000 tf 000 000 L5Q,000 Z 770,000 165,000 160,000 155,000 £50,000 S#5, 000 142,000 135,000 730,000 126,000 £20,000 115,000 710,000 105,000 £00,000 95, 000 goo TE,000 00 000 G5, 000 Ggoo0d. IE, 000 50,000 F5,9000 40,000 000 30,000 26,000 000 15,9000 10,000 5,000 LE30 | 28FO SESO 186O L&E, LO P20 LIAO LPFO | SISO ment; the unnecessary over-building on the land used for dwellings, especially for working-men; the lack of regulation and control of different building districts for different purposes, thus failing to pro- vide better facilities for factories and also for homes; and neglect in setting aside adequate parks, playgrounds and other open spaces. The Preliminary Report on city planning for Bridgeport which was submitted more than a year ago gave much attention to the local survey of existing conditions as a basis for city planning, to the Fair- field Avenue Bridge problem, to main lines of communication, to the proposed industrial water front, to the outlining of a park system, to the establishment of building zones, to better land subdivision and im- proved housing. Later on, in October, 1915, a special report on East Bridgeport was submitted for the suggestion and guidance of the city planning authorities, as a concrete example of the laying out of an actual tract of about 300 acres close to the new factories of the Rem- ington Arms Company. Some essential parts of these earlier reports are here reproduced. The Final Report is now presented to the City Plan Commission. It includes chapters dealing with main streets throughout the entire city and beyond, the Down Town District, the subdivision of outlying land into blocks and lots, the establishment of building districts for dif- ferent purposes, and a program for local playgrounds and parks and a general park system. The Report, with its recommendations, is backed up by carefully prepared plans, sketches, diagrams, and photo- graphs. There is also an important supplement and report prepared by Mr. Frank B. Williams of New York, dealing directly with the legal methods of carrying out the city plan of Bridgeport. it , 2 3 4 3 ‘ 7 6 2 jo 4” 2 a 7 e “a 7 “a 2 2 2 2 2 9 a a Z 2 22 30 y u 2 oe as Be 7 33 3 * v Ya wn ~ s ory Sam'- Public CS Cre heer BRIDGEPORT CONNECTICUT GENERAL : CITY: PLAN Showing Conditions, uch ges and New Planning within present City Lines JOHN NoLeN City PLANNER CAMBRIDGE MAss. 15 See folded insert for large copy of General City Plan in color Il. MAIN LINES OF COMMUNICATION INCLUDING SOME REFERENCES TO CITY TRANSIT PROBLEMS. A plan showing the proposed main lines of communication was submitted in the Preliminary Report to the City Plan Commission. It included not only Bridgeport, but also parts of Stratford, Fairfield, and Trumbull. The determining factors in the location of these main lines of communication, and of the various local centers con- nected by them, were the topographical features, including the Sound, the rivers, lakes and streams; also the railroads, and principal outlying towns and villages. The general city plan now submitted is at larger scale, but con- fined to the city boundaries of Bridgeport. In considering the subject of main lines of communication, both plans should be examined. The problems of greatest importance to Bridgeport are, after all, those of its main thoroughfares, and the better and more adequate pro- vision for street transportation. These problems have reached an acute form in the Down Town District, and are discussed in more detail in the following chapter. If the work done for the City Plan Commission accomplishes nothing else, it ought to be the means at least of preventing the spread of street congestion to the areas beyond the present Down Town District. Bridgeport like other cities, will depend for its permanent and orderly growth upon its streets and transit facilities. There are essential differences between main thoroughfares and local streets. Local streets may be short, sharply curved, steep, and narrow, and yet they may serve well their main purposes. But main throughfares must have continuity, they must be through-going streets. They may be straight or curved, provided the curves are not too sharp. They must have easy grades and adequate width not only for present use, but reasonable allowance for the increased future de- mands which are certain to come. Where travel is today, still more travel will follow. Some of the general principles in the planning of main thorough- fares which should be recalled in connection with the proposed im- provement of Bridgeport are as follows:— 1. That some central city authority should undertake the plan- ning of all main lines of communication. 2. That arterial streets and roads should be taken seriously as highways for intercommunication, and enough direct routes preserved from being blocked to provide for considerable future increase of road traffic. 3. That we should recognize that streets now carry vehicles of at least three distinct speeds, and that wherever possible, efficiency requires separate lines and tracks for the use of each. 4. That the danger and delay caused by the crossing of main 7 Existing Streets . eusenecses Proposed Strects wr NM tne Taarint bins OIAGRAM Srowis Main THOROUGHFARES 1916 Diagram showing main thoroughfares, existing and proposed, 1916 thoroughfares should be reduced, so far as possible, by gathering up the minor roads into secondary streets, and by bringing the latter into main thoroughfares only at fairly long intervals. 5. That where these junctions occur, ample space for the circu- lation and distribution of traffic should be provided to facilitate pass- ing and crossing and make it safer. 6. That the location of main thoroughfares should not be con- sidered by itself, but should take account of the planning of business, industrial and residential districts; of areas for recreation, and of con- nections with surrounding towns and cities. 7. That the organic planning of street systems with a main frame of thoroughfares requires the use of varying street widths. Such a system is more efficient, more economical, and also more stable. It renders less liable undesirable and unnecessary changes. 8. That in new suburban areas, adequate width on the main routes should be reserved wherever additional space is likely to be needed by future growth. Street traffic has not only increased in volume, but also in com- plexity. One of the comparatively modern demands on the streets is the street railway and other forms of rapid transit. In the big cities the surface of the streets has proved altogether inadequate, so that elevated, subway, and open cut railway lines have had to be con- structed as a means of relief. Such lines have proved very costly. For example, while the single track of overhead trolley construction costs only about $40,000 per mile, an elevated road costs about $125,000 per mile, an open cut about $225,000 per mile, and a subway about $400,000 per mile. These figures are given as fair average costs. They do not include the cost of power plants, power distribution, rolling stock, or operating equipment, nor the value of the property for rights of way or easement, and in each case they are given on the basis of the construction of a double track road. But the objections to rapid transit by means of elevated, open cut, and subway lines are not limited to the cost. These methods of rapid transit have brought in their train increased centralization and congestion, high land values and speculation, and a demand, if not an economic necessity, for high business buildings at one end of the line and apartment and tenement houses at the other. With the adoption of these forms of rapid transit, business buildings of moder- ate height and the single-family house as the typical home are made less and less possible. Once established, the remedy of these evils is difficult; preventive measures for the smaller city, however, are com- paratively easy. Bridgeport by proper planning may escape them. One way out is to be found in a more adequate street system, and a better co-ordination of transit facilities. An experienced engineer has recently written on this subject as follows:—‘Thoroughly eco- nomic and satisfactory transportation facilities will not be provided in any city until the street planning and street railway authorities work 9 Imqunzy, pue ppeyare,y ‘proyyezyg yo sumo} yuaoelpe oy} ur pue yiode8piig ul suonrpuos Sursixe moys 0} s201n0s snoueA wo pepiduros dey ec “ao. pnot aGnNv7sis exe - e ‘fp re if Rites oe oe i i = W a o * as \ : f { 5 : | % a ; | sh 3 4 = ss i] \ f { : : = et , | pre cS | £ y 4 3 » ae [Y Lae | wy i Wes - — Ce OCR Il Wee Ee eR cn \ i Gy P Lp = ey ¥ \ te J SS 3 ‘ o i ZZ i 3 | ~ 7 : i vw i PT l 7 ) O _ : 9 fl Lg r Now ete, J 2 & : >[cs ae, L ie oo < Z = a a j 7 3 | % . s 4 W a8 ee Z 10 quoudojaaap pesodoid 40} ue[Y [elauar * tore aGNwTSTs ANINSOTSATG GISOSWS YOY ~ONz997 NVTd IWUFINTAD sur weely ahpopeey bo pomaroey Popynyy ovestaety mayen tye fas ares ASM ONY L5H? ENMOL LWIDWrCY ONY LAILITNNOD LMOAFTIGIA F peo JO ALID f ay 1 | Pees J} aK vy Ko (/ os. ‘ 7 / nh / ‘ fis Le / Jr~ Node ry . YA eZ —_ x TS tS ~ woasecy 1 in co-operation in planning extensions and improvements. Some difference of opinion exists among city planners as to which is of greater importance, the street or the railway, but it does not seem that any city would make much progress if it did not have both and as both are undoubtedly essential they should be considered as directly related and interdependent in any scheme of town planning. Street systems have expanded more or less arbitrarily without any considera- tion of their practical availability for purposes of general transporta- tion and the rapid transit engineers are everywhere confronted with extraordinarily complex and costly work in providing the transpor- tation service now demanded by the public.” A street car system should not only keep pace with the growth of a city, it should keep ahead of it. Furthermore, good service by car lines means not only an adequate number of cars, but also the use of the right streets, the making of the right connections, and the provision of proper terminal facilities. It would be of great value to the City Plan Commission to have a traffic expert make a study of the trans- portation problems of Bridgeport in connection with the city plan, similar, for example, to the one made for Erie by Goodrich and Lane.’ The system of main lines of communication for Bridgeport as shown on the general plan takes into account existing conditions, and the difficulties of changing them. At the same time, it aims to provide the indispensable radial and circumferential through connections in and out of the city, and round about it, even though these connections must be of moderate width. The principal points to which the people would always want to go are rendered by this plan reasonably acces- sible, so that traveling by street car, automobile, carriage, or on foot would be safe, direct and pleasant. The requirements of hauling have also been carefully considered and so far as possible provided for. It is further recommended that the width of main thoroughfares be as generous as possible. As examples of accepted standards, it is generally agreed among those who have to do with street planning and traffic conditions that a city thoroughfare should be at least 100 feet in width, and a secondary street 80 feet in width. Bridgeport should go as far as may be toward these standards. For example Pe- quonnock Street should be widened through to at least 72 feet and if possible to 80 feet. In some American cities, the street widths range from 88 feet for secondary streets up to 140 to 180 or 200 feet for main thoroughfares. The street widths for Bridgeport should be worked out carefully for each street, considering existing private property lines, the economic units for width based upon street use and size of vehicles, and the probable future requirements of the street under consideration. The general plan submitted shows the following selected list of streets as comprising the proposed system of main thoroughfares. *See “Greater Erie. Plans and Reports for the Extension and Improvement of the City." By John Nolen. pp. 105-119. 12 The list of local street changes is not given, but they are all shown on the General Plan. Diagram is submitted for clearer presentation. 1. A new circumferential highway extending from the Fairfield line, upper end of Park Avenue, eastward practically following the Trumbull line to Broad Bridge Road where it crosses into Stratford. This highway follows the general lines of a number of existing roads. a cy OA £ ed THROUGH STREET 13 2. A second circumferential highway or boulevard extending from Park Avenue just north of Merritt Street across North Bridge- port through northerly end of Beardsley Park by existing road to Huntington Turnpike at its junction with first circumferential high- way. : 3. Savoy Street straightened, and extended along northern end of Park Cemetery to bridge at North and Glenwood Avenues, then along Boston Avenue to Bishop Avenue where the line follows new diagonal extension to Barnum Avenue.” 4. Capitol Avenue with extension just south of Seeley’s Pond to North Avenue, then by way of North Avenue, Glenwood Avenue, Crown Street and Noble Avenue to Huntington Turnpike. 5. North Avenue to small square at Island Brook Avenue, then by way of Reservoir Avenue to city line. 6. Washington Avenue from Park Avenue to Congress Street, then by Congress Street to new diagonal east of bridge to Washington Park and north along Noble Avenue to Beardsley Park. 6a. Barnum Avenue from Noble Avenue east all the way to Stratford is a second branch of this main line. 7. Fairfield Avenue from Fairfield to the Pequonnock River, then by new bridge and easterly approach to Stratford Avenue, reach- ing Stratford line by way of Connecticut Avenue. 7a. New diagonal highway branching from Fairfield Avenue at Gilman Avenue and running westerly to Fairfield Beach. 8. State Street from Fairfield to new bridge over Pequonnock River, then by Stratford Avenue to Stratford. 8a. Another branch of this same main line would be the con- nections linking Lordship Manor Boulevard with Stratford Avenue at Yellow Mill Park. 9. Dewey Street and Brooklawn Avenue to Park Avenue. 10. Park Avenue. 11. South and North Main Streets. 12. East Main Street. 13. From Pleasure Beach Bridge by new connection including Webster Street to Central Avenue, north to Boston Avenue, then by Palisade Avenue and its extension to Stratford line. 14. From Pleasure Beach Bridge by new streets along Johnson’s Creek to Edwin Street, then by way of Bishop Avenue, Freeman and Willow Streets to Boston Avenue, where connection is made with Success Avenue. In considering the changes in main thoroughfares here recom- mended, the City Plan Commission should have in mind especially the following four points:— 1This important improvement has been worked out in detail as appears in the Appendix “‘Report de Boston Ave. Extension,’ so as to furnish much- needed direct connection between the Old Mill Green section and North Main Street near St. Vincent's Hospital. Its moderate cost could readily be provided from the bond issue for street improvements recently authorized. 14 |. The utter inadequacy of the Bridgeport streets now used for main traffic, not only in built-up sections, but in many outlying sec- tions. The streets which are required to take care of this main traffic today are practically the same as they were fifty years ago, when Bridgeport had a population of only 15,000 people, when there was no street car system, and when modern motor vehicles were unknown. om CPA Proposed waterfront street 2. The justification of radical changes in Bridgeport’s street system even at considerable cost. The solution of street problems be- comes more and more difficult every year; the necessity for action more and more imperative. It is folly for a city of Bridgeport’s present position and wealth not to face this situation frankly, and to aim at the planning and prompt construction of an efficient and economical system of street circulation. If wisely planned and properly executed, its cost will be more than justified by its returns. 3. The great opportunity of the outlying districts should be em- braced. The closely built-up sections of Bridgeport can only be changed with difficulty, and at great expense. Here lower standards must be adopted. But after all, such sections in Bridgeport are fortu- nately very limited. Immediately beyond them, and especially in the outlying regions of the city, and in the towns adjoining, the task is relatively easy, and should be taken up by the city and by the adjacent towns without delay. 4. A conscious policy of “‘decentralization’’ should be adopted. Closely related to the broad problems of circulation, and requiring planning in connection with it, is what has been called ‘‘decentraliza- tion.’ It can be accomplished by the establishment of a larger busi- ness area in Bridgeport, with different centers as proposed, by a rigid limitation on the height of buildings, and by the districting of the city, fixing different zones for different purposes, thus providing better for business, for industry, and for various types of residences, and at the same time distributing them throughout a much wider city area. 15 seBueys Burmoys uresZeip 103 EZ eBed Buiowy deur P2ploy 22g “pasodoid se yoysIq UMO] UMOG ey} JO UeTY [eIEUaT Ill THE DOWN TOWN DISTRICT The recommendations of this chapter may be summarized as follows :— I. The expansion of the area of the Down Town District so as to include the whole territory from the Pequonnock River to Iranistan Avenue, and from Liberty Street to Washington Avenue. II. Street widenings, as hereafter indicated. III. The improvement of intersections, as hereafter indicated. IV. Street extensions, as hereafter indicated. V. New Streets, as hereafter indicated. (If these street changes are approved, it would be necessary to have detail plans prepared as a basis for their proper ex- ecution. ) VI. The open-minded consideration of the problem of the width of Main Street, and the possibility of relief through new traffic regu- lations. yt VII. The adoption of an ordinance limiting the height of build- ings in the Down Town District to not more than one and one-half times the width of the street. VIII. The approval of the scheme for the re-location of the future central railroad station. IX. The adoption of a plan for a Civic Group. X. The grouping of other education buildings around the new High School on Golden Hill, thus forming an Education Group. The general plan of the Down Town District shows the pro- posed widening and extension of streets to meet traffic conditions, an orderly grouping of public buildings in the civic group and the educa- tion group, a small park on the site of the present City Hall, and also the proposed re-located central railroad station. The area included in the general plan of the Down Town District embraces the Pequonnock River, Park Avenue, State Street, and Golden Hill, with the blocks immediately surrounding these principal features. The main idea which has controlled the selection of the boundaries of this area and the plans for its improvement is that there is an imperative need for the expansion of the business district of Bridgeport. The Pequonnock River to the east, the steep grades and existing street arrangement to the north, and the railroad to the south practically limit the expansion of the business district to the west. Here grades, street arrangements and the absence of topographical difficulties are all favorable and afford a good opportunity to make the 17 Robert Street, St. Paul, Minn. Front of buildings torn down for widening of street 18 Robert Street, St. Paul, after widening. This improvement was made, without cost to the city except for street reconstruction 19 necessary extension of the district, and the gradual shifting of its center. The time for large action has arrived. Relatively petty changes in the widening and extension of streets will at most only furnish temporary relief, and in a few years, the city will be confronted again with the same problems. A study of the present plan of Bridge- port, and of the existing local conditions, shows the greatest city planning need to be a movement of the business center west of the intersection of Fairfield Avenue, State Street, and Park Avenue. The inadequacy of the present area centering at Fairfield Avenue and Main Street, and the impossibility of its satisfactory expansion in all direc- tions from this point, can be better appreciated by an examination of a Fairfield Avenue, north side, from opposite Harrison Street looking east. Encroachments narrowing street at time when widening is needed and most easily obtained the general city plan of Bridgeport submitted, and of the business zone shown in the proposed building zone diagram of Bridgeport repro- duced in this Report. At the present time, Bridgeport requires improvement in many directions. It is difficult to say whether general street development throughout the whole city territory, both main and local streets, the establishment of ‘building districts, the better provision for housing, or the opening up of areas for recreation, is most necessary. Public 20 opinion, however, appears to be forming to demand first of all a relief of the congestions in the Down Town District. This public opinion was expressed forcibly in a recent editorial in one of the local papers, in the following words:—‘‘Now the real need of Bridgeport at the present time, and the only acute one, is relief from congested traffic conditions. The wear and tear upon the people through this conges- tion is immense. From it all sorts of disturbance comes. The cost to the city cannot be estimated. It is the one thing that an up to date city government would seek to relieve at the earliest possible date. * * * Traffic conditions on Main Street are something awful. The other evening it took a trolley car twenty minutes to go from State Street to make the turn at Congress Street. Automobiles were ‘An example of a wide business street in Denver held up at the same time. * * * We do not hesitate to say that the present traffic conditions in the city’s center are intolerable. What is more, they will be worse instead of better, unless something is done to bring about a measure of relief.” Street Changes in the Down Town District. The recommendations for street changes in the Down Town Dis- trict are shown on the plan submitted. They consist of (1) Street Widenings, (2) the Improvement of Street Intersections, (3) Street Extensions, and (4) New Streets, as follows: 21 (1) Street Widenings. Main Street’—50 ft. up, widened to 65 ft. State Street’—entire length, from 50 ft. and 66 ft. to 80 ft. Fairfield Avenue’—entire length, from 48 ft. to 56 ft., widened to 72 ft. John Street’—35 ft. and 4914, ft., to 60 ft. Cannon Street’—42 ft., to 50 ft. Water Street’—32 ft. up, widened to 60 ft. Housatonic Avenue’—2) ft., to 60 ft. Middle Street°—50 ft., widened to building line, 58 ft.— 66 ft. Wall Street’—50 ft., to 60 ft. Seeley Street’, from Fairfield Avenue to State Street— 45 ft., to 60 ft. Park Avenue’, from Fairfield Avenue to State Street, to 185 ft. (forming open space). West Avenue’, from Fairfield Avenue to State Street, 49/4 ft., to 60 ft. 1The Commission does not concur in this change proposed by Mr. Nolen, on account of the great expense and because it is based on a single track street car line while there is no adjacent parallel street of similar charac- ter for the second car line. The Commission approves this widening of State Street to eighty (80) feet, and Fairfield Avenue to seventy-two (72) feet, since these are the two established main east and west thoroughfares. It recommends that the widen- ing be accomplished by the immediate establishment of building lines at the above widths, by their rigid enforcement, and later by the actual widening of these streets to the building lines. It is believed that within a surprisingly short time, and after a few new buildings have been constructed in conformity to these lines, many property owners will voluntarily reconstruct their present buildings and the remaining structures can be condemned at moderate expense, for the actual widening. 8The judgment of the Commission is that John Street should be made sixty (60) feet wide from Broad Street to West Avenue by the building line process above mentioned, and possibly to the same width between Broad and Main streets unless the expense is too high. This requires further examination. *The Commission does not concur in this proposal as to Cannon Street. ’Widening of Water Street to sixty (60) feet is not sufficient. The Commission believes that Water Street from Fairfield Avenue to Wall Street should be made one hundred (100) feet wide at once, for the reasons and pur- poses stated in its report to the Common Council dated May 1, 1916. South of Wall Street, Water Street should either be left as it is, taking care of the traffic by the proposed new diagonal street, or the alternative of widening both State and Water Streets to eighty (80) feet should be adopted. As to these questions, and the widening of Housatonic Avenue, see the special Report in the Appendix as to relief of Main Street traffic. °This widening of Middle Street is approved by the Commission. "This widening of Wall Street does not seem useful to the Commission. Widening to the face of the present principal buildings with prohibition against parking of vehicles, should be sufficient. ®These changes in Seeley Street, Park Avenue and West Avenue are approved by the Commission as part of the Civic Center development. 22 CITY: OF - BRIDGEPORT CONNECTICUT GENERAL PLAN \ OF ‘THE DOWN TOWN DISTRICT Showing Widening and Extension of Streets to Improve Traffte Conditions and an Orderly Croup- ing off Public Buildings. SCALE JOHN NOLEN: City PLANNER CAMBRIDGE MASS. 1916 Brrr LLTOEEB CLL dil th ipgsrorm LLL LEIP ry REL <2 2 so? Ay Li SG} SEE ON SSS SS SSS YI NS IMS RSS AVENUE STREET WEST TaNOVER STREET > ta al Aa ud 9} | 3 COTFAGE The gerne? fand takings for traffic pur in the Down Town District are shown this:- Street widenings hae New streets, street axtensions and new traffic spaces CZZZZZZZZZZ0 oy MYRTLE WARREN WEST. LIBERTY, STREET PLAN N* 107 SY INCRRNEESTESSS SES RAS AQQQAAS iy so pawn BESS SSSSSSSSSS SS 59 ore er cONNES, STR e / E 3 & a = AVENUE: be MW, EL STREET : j Lie [> ny my “| STREET ena STREET : ae Yj} j Jf WALL YY} a iff ti WV S STREET 2 Gi WH He LS Way BANK tot : Hey : Wa : Hee Wy i Ya al! STREET STREET. SSN 7 LAFAYETTE ei iD Ir Ay fa ~< | fe rn Ee) Harrison Street? from Washington Avenue to State Street, 48 ft., to 60 ft. (2) Improvements of Intersections. Liberty Street and West Liberty Street at Lafayette Street. Cannon Street’ at Courtland Street and Fairfield Avenue. Arch Street at New Street, north-west of Museum site. State Street at Water Street. (3) Street Extensions. Elm Street’ to West Way. Harrison Street’—Fairfield Avenue to State Street. West Avenue—Washington Avenue around to: Park Avenue. Seeley Street—Fairfield Avenue to Park Avenue. Hanover Street—Park Avenue to West Avenue. End of Chapel Street to Congress Street. State Street** to East Bridgeport by new bridge across Pequonnock River. Liberty Street**—east, Broad Street to Main Street, west, Lafayette Street to Warren Street. (4) New Streets. From Congress Street to Arch Street, west of Museum site. From Congress Street to Arch Street, east of Museum site. From Golden Hill Street to Congress Street east side of plaza of Education Group. °This extension of Harrison Street has the hearty approval of the Commission. It is believed to be preferable to the proposed extension of Lafayette Street to Harrison, but one or the other extension should be made at once. Main Street, between Bull’s Head and State Street, would be relieved of much automobile traffic. Another important point is that in connection with Pequonnock Street, it would furnish a short and direct route to the center of the city for the entire northwest section of Bridgeport. With this exceed- ingly useful future in mind, Harrison and Pequonnock streets, in the judgment of the Commission, should both be widened to seventy-two (72) feet now, while most of the necessary land is either open or occupied by cheap buildings. 20Approved by the Commission. “Not approved, except to the extent of removing part of the Sullivan grocery building to improve the lines of sight for traffic purposes. 12This extension of Elm Street is approved. It is desirable to open up back land and the beginning of this improvement already under way should ensure its early completion. 13The State Street bridge must some day be had, but full consideration of the problems involved is both desirable and necessary. 14These extensions of Liberty Street are approved by the Commission. 23 From — Street to Fairfield Avenue, east side of Station plaza. From Fairfield Avenue to State Street. Diagonal street through Civic Group. From Fairfield Avenue to Elm Street, extended. River front (Public Landing) State Street to Fairfield Avenue. pe rn eran ns yea Ta ce Paes ee ar) oh State Street, Bridgeport, below Main, looking toward Water Street It will be noted from the foregoing list, and from an examination of the general plan submitted of the Down Town District, and of the copy of the Down Town District plan showing changes, that reliance for circulation east and west is placed mainly upon Fairfield Avenue and State Street, and north and south upon Main Street and Park Avenue. These are the main arteries of the extended district. How- 24 ever, the widening and extension of the subordinate streets, and the improvement of street intersections, would add materially to the con- venience of traffic circulation through the Down Town District. For example, east and west the changes in John Street, Cannon Street, Liberty Street and Elm Street, and north and south, in Water Street, Housatonic Avenue and Harrison Street. The advantages of widen- ing Water Street cannot easily be over-estimated. The new bridge at Fairfield Avenue, and especially the proposed bridge at State Street, would give relief at the most congested points. To appreciate the advantages of these bridges and their effect in relieving congestion, the traffic figures submitted with the Preliminary City Planning Re- port should be re-examined. It has been proposed that Water Street should be cut through to the intersection of Main and State Streets. The purpose of this street extension would be to afford another and more direct way from State Street and the territory beyond, to the railroad station, the Fairfield Avenue bridge and East Bridgeport, thus relieving a much over- crowded Main Street. To some extent the proposed change would probably accomplish this purpose. The question of its justification rests primarily upon the cost, the method of meeting the cost, and the relative merits and cost of other methods of accomplishing the same purpose. Chief among these other methods is the proposed State Street bridge referred to elsewhere in this Report, and shown on the General Plan. The matter deserves careful consideration. The question of what Bridgeport can do with Main Street, especially between Fairfield Avenue and State Street, remains un- settled. Of course, it is desirable that it should be widened. The cost now, however, appears to be prohibitive, except for a relatively low and inadequate width of, say, 65 feet, permitting one car line and two lines of vehicles on each side of the track. If that is so, its relief can only be had by traffic regulations, which would reduce the con- gestion on Main Street by transferring some of the travel to other streets. For example, the street car traffic one way could be transferred to Harrison Street, bettering conditions considerably. Water Street should be considered, although on the whole, it seems as if the greater advantage would come from moving the car line west rather than east, as the expansion of the district must ultimately be away from the river. It should be kept in mind, however, that the State Street Bridge and the widening of Water Street, as well as the other street changes, will all tend to relieve the excessive traffic, which now is compelled to follow Main Street, and which is one of the principal causes of down town congestion. The street grades throughout this Down Town District are in no cases heavy, with the exception of Courtland Street, parts of Harrison 25 Illustration of an Arcade in Brussels, Belgium 26 Street, Golden Hill Street, Congress Street, and Arch Street. Typical street grades as given in the statement of the City Engineer are as follows: — Fairfield Ave., Ellsworth to Scofield Ave. 1% Park Ave., Linden to Park Place 2% Congress St., West Approach Congress St., East approach (2.8%) 3% Washington Ave., Park Ave. to Washington Terrace 4% Golden Hill St., Water to Middle Sts. Washington Ave., Lexington to Catherine St. 5% Park Ave., R. R. to Austin St. View Back at business district from Stratford Avenue Bridge. Bridgeport’s Municipal Pier. Compare this with Chelsea Docks, New York City or Commonwealth Piers, Boston, for example Congress St., Main St. to Housatonic Ave. 6% Congress St., Main St. to Lyon Terrace 7% Fulton St., Washington Ave. to Main St. (81) 8% Golden Hill St., Main to Broad St. 10% Harrison St., Elm St. to Golden Hill St. Courtland St., Fairfield Ave. to Washington Ave. 12% Closely related to the problems of congestion in the Down Town District is the question of height of buildings. | recommend that this 27 matter be given consideration at the earliest possible moment. The adoption of an ordinance regulating the height of buildings in the business district, based largely upon the width of streets, would be of incalculable benefit to Bridgeport in heading off some of the worst and most unnecessary evils of congestion in the area now under discussion. At the present time there are only three buildings in this district with eight stories, or more, and only two exceeding one hundred feet in New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Passenger Station, Bridgeport, from Golden Hill Street height. Consideration should be given to the experience and action of Boston, and its results, and to the present dilemma in which New York finds itself. At the most the height limits of Boston should not be exceeded. Reasonable regulations of the height of buildings in Bridgeport would cost the city nothing, simplify transportation pro- blems, save the people great expense, and make it possible to provide 28 better conditions for business in the larger Down Town District. The principal objections to skyscrapers are increased fire hazard, in- adequate light and air, excessive land values in a few spots, unpleasant architectural effects, and undue centralization leading to congestion and acute forms of traffic problems. The railroad station is given on the Down Town District plan, opposite Wall Street, as was recommended in the Preliminary Report. Further study of this problem in connection with the general plan of Bridgeport, and especially of the Down Town District, has brought increasing convicition that this is a desirable change. The disadvan- tages and limitations of the present site are known to every one and require no repetition. While the station itself may not be moved soon, Delaware & Lackawanna Railroad Station, Scranton, Penna. A good example of Station and approaches if the recommendation is approved, it would be possible gradually to carry out other changes so as to anticipate the future removal of the station, and the construction of a more adequate and appropriate building on the more convenient site. So far as traffic conditions go, the most important changes in connection with the station are the opening up of the railroad plaza, the widening of Water Street, and the opening of a new street east of the railroad station along the water front. Of course, the extension of State Street by the construction of the proposed bridge across the Pequonnock River to East Bridgeport is in a way a part of the same general improvement. : The Civic Group is shown at the general intersection of Fairfield 29 yodespug ‘enuaay yeg pue y2213¢ 9787g ‘anueAY peystey ‘dnoisy d1AIy pasodoid jo mata ofa s,prlg Avenue, State Street, and Park Avenue.’ This is the logical location. Fortunately, too, land values and building conditions in this section will still permit of a scheme worthy of Bridgeport. The city is lacking in ceniral open spaces, and is in need of new sites for the City Hall, Library, Post Office, and other public or semi-public buildings. The scheme submitted provides a traffic square 300 ft. by 150 ft. at the intersection of Fairfield and Park Avenues, and an open park space 600 ft. by 300 ft. as a setting for public buildings. It is, of course, only a general outline, the details of which could be modified readily to suit conditions that would develop from a definite effort to plan for and carry out the general idea. The Civic Group is balanced and supplemented in the eastern section by the Education Group shown on City Hall, Albany, N. Y. A good example of a public building with adequate open space to give it a proper setting Golden Hill, which centers on the newly constructed High School. It requires certain street widenings and openings, and shows the location of a future School of Commerce, or some other higher public school building, and also a city museum. Here again the scheme is only tentative and general, and submitted as an illustration of possible ar- rangement and method of procedure. Details could readily be 1After very full and careful consideration, the Commission endorses and approves Mr. Nolen's proposed location of the Civic Center, for the reasons mentioned in the Preface, not the least of which is the favorable view of the Library Board toward that neighborhood for the new central Public Library. 31 asodoid se zode8pug ‘]IFy Ueplor uo dnox uolyeon, P Pg ‘TH YPpleD iD Pa changed. The immediate factor of importance is to conceive of a plan broad enough to include the larger requirements of the immediate future. Some of the general advantages of grouping public buildings are as follows: I. Additional convenience in the transaction of public business. II. Recognition in the location of the Civic Center of one im- portant feature of a natural zone system, with certain incidental ad- vantages in building regulations and fire protection. III. Reduction to a minimum of the interference of public build- ings and grounds with private business property and business interests. IV. Economy in the early purchase of land, which can thus be had in large quantities at wholesale rates. V. Better use of the same amount of land as a result of the grouping of buildings. VI. More permanence of the municipal center, and therefore greater stability of land values. VII. Margin of land for future expansion and adjustment with- out unnecessary expense, as the need for additional public building de- velops. VIII. A reasonable check upon speculative interests, and reduc- tion or elimination of much of the bitterness due to clamoring over the selection of sites for each new public building. A logical place having been determined upon, the erection of buildings from time to time fol- lows, as a matter of course, a well considered scheme. IX. Financial return from increased taxes due to the higher values of property near the established municipal center, and to the erection of hotels, theatres, office buildings, etc., which naturally seek the desirable locations adjacent to public buildings, and the open spaces and parks surrounding them. X. Larger dividends from the money which the city invests in architecture and other forms of outdoor civic art; a better effect is se- cured for the same money, or an equally good effect from less money, than would be the case with buildings without orderly relation to each other. XI. An effective combination of many of the arts in a single harmonious composition. This combination permits the municipality to engage more highly qualified and experienced men to make plans for its Civic Group. XII. Suitable locations for civic sculpture and the appropriate adornment of open spaces, with facilities for the incidental require- ments in the way of parking spaces for automobiles, convenient car exchanges, and public comfort stations. XIII. Above all, a Civic Group stimulates civic pride, and nourishes civic life, without which a city cannot truly grow and flourish. It aids a city in its competition with other cities; it gives form to community effort, and heartens, inspires and guides the de- velopment of private property. 33 yodespig 10} pesodoid yoeoidde peowtes jo adéy ulapour Moys 0} pasedaid y9}94¢ sa@Bpliq Om} ey} UsaMjoq pesodoid se uoNRIG peolIEy YM aspug 3221S a}e1S pesodoid ayzerzjysnyj! 0} Yyo}2@4S 35 (prooay peanyoayysIy jo Asaynog) ‘spaeyysry ‘seueg 2 []?4qq0H ‘wy jo wasn, puepeaaty ‘sBulpunoxzins poos yym Zurpying o1qnd jo a[durexy 36 Good grouping of public buildings facing public square, Springfield, Mass. Note especially the good effect resulting from combination of buildings with adequate open space 37 The Capitol at Rome. An ideal terminus. Compare with Broad Street above 38 BRIDGEPORT ConnecTiCcur Theoretical Diagram of ‘ain Lines o Communtcation Sohn Nolon andscape Architect farvard Sguare Cambridge Afass. SPIE £ ‘ & BY 4 t § S 9 ev 74.2. . e Y- Bl : Lk Seo. FRA 7, Matos 1 /} Re Sree, * Strat; fords Ce Ps * . “Ss po! “S Ss, gouT™™ =. 2 Pugs Png = "e, cK * SON oe > == oN "Eo, ‘3. Aes oe = = SCALE = 4s 2 Ja. 5, PUE The theoretical diagram of main lines of communication follows very closely the actual street relations of the General Plan submitted, and shows how, with a comparatively few new streets and connections, the main traffic ways can be wrought into an orderly, balanced frame, on which to build up the future city 39 Street Scenes in Stratford, Conn., suburb of Bridgeport The natural charm which Bridgeport streets and houses formerly had can be regained 40 IV THE SUBDIVISION OF CITY LAND INTO BLOCKS AND LOTS. TYPES AND RESTRICTIONS PROPOSED.’ The subject of local streets and the subject of the subdivision of land into blocks and lots for dwellings are really two sides of the same subject. The location of local streets will depend largely upon the size of blocks and lots desired, and the size of the blocks and lots will be de- termined largely by the requirements of a convenient and economical local street system. Some of the underlying principles of land subdivision generally accepted as sound may be stated as follows:— 1. The plan for the subdivision of property should fit the topo- graphy, and give due consideration to natural features. _ .2. Even if the land is relatively level, the plan should neverthe- less have interest, good organization and design. The point of view that leads to a good arrangement on hilly ground, gives also a good arrangement on level land. This was illustrated in a measure in the competition for the subdivision of a quarter section of land carried on by the Chicago City Club. Although the land was described as level, none of the plans awarded the prizes followed the characteristic checkerboard plan which usually prevails on such property in Ameri- can cities. 3. The use that is to be made of the land should determine its general plan and restrictions. There is no plan that is best for all places, nor for the same place for all time. Merit is largely a question of fitness for its original purpose, and its adaptability or convertibility for probable future purposes. 4. Thoroughfares, and other broadly related city planning fea- tures, should be located first, and within these lines and in conformity to them, local streets, blocks and lots should be defined in the best possible manner. 5. The various standards for various classes of property, the lot widths and lot depths, recognized by the best authorities should be ap- plied with skill and discrimination. These are by no means absolute or fixed; they are still open to discussion, and in each case are largely matters of nice judgment. Still, there is some law. For instance, the minimum requirements of detached, of semi-detached, and of row or grouped houses, in all of which, for this purpose, there is substantial agreement, determine largely the width and depth of lots. The size of 1The attention of readers who are interested in matters of Good Housing for Bridgeport is called to the pamphlet report on that subject recently pub- lished by the Chamber of Commerce, based upon a special report procured by that body from Mr. Nolen. 41 New houses built by Remington Arms Company, Bridgeport lots determines largely the size of blocks; the blocks determine the lay-out of the neighborhood. These, in turn, react upon street widths, playgrounds, and other public features. 6. An increase of lots or residence sites by new land subdivisions, and of the necessary streets, should be accompanied by a correspond- ing increase of playgrounds, parks, and other indispensable public fea- tures required by the probable population of the area when fully built up. The best time to make these reservations of public spaces is when the land is first subdivided. The cost should be assessed in accordance with the benefit. 7. The interests of the real estate operator, of the prospective owner or user, and of the general public, should be harmonized so far as possible. In most cases, this is not as difficult as it might seem. While the immediate interests of the three parties are not identical, they are not in the long run normally in conflict. It is part of the re- sponsibility of the public, acting through well considered and equitable regulation and law, to remove causes of conflict, and thus to define the rights and duties of the several parties. 8. A plan for dividing land must consider the different require- ments of different building districts or zones, not only their immediate use, but also probable subsequent use, administration and main- tenance, and must, so far as possible, forecast and provide for the future, This may be done in part by the plan itself, and in part by binding restrictions and conditions, providing for permanency, or, it may anticipate a change or conversion into a different use. Opinions of designers differ as to which is more desirable, a plan that makes change difficult or one that makes change easy. Here again it is a 42 Common type in Bridgeport before passing of Building Ordinance. Compare with new type on opposite page mistake to dogmatize. One thing is clear, however, even from a super- ficial study of land subdivision in its relation to housing, namely, that the worst results have not been due usually to the low standard or the lack of fitness of the subdivision for its original purpose, but to its lack of fitness for the purposes to which there was afterwards an attempt to adapt it, or to the lack of public regulation and control, or the low standard which the city permitted to be applied. Here, we believe, public regulation and control would be of great benefit. Examples from almost any city in this country may be cited in support of this statement. The laying out of land is always a local matter, and requires skill and judgment in the application of the underlying principles to the -- particular case under consideration. There is always a danger in stating standard arrangements and general principles, because they may be followed in such a way as to produce unfavorable results. Nevertheless, it seems worth while to present some illustrations of existing and proposed blocks and lots for the consideration of the City Plan Commission. The first set are typical examples of actual lot and block plans and the building development of Bridgeport. The wide difference in the use and size and character of buildings in the same block, and the con- gested conditions are very noticeable. These examples are normal. The following is a brief description of each, corresponding with the numbers shown on the plans reproduced :— 1. No. 1 is a typical block in the East End. The lots along the main streets are being used for store and tenement purposes. One side of the block is built with two family houses, while more than half of 43 aBed opsoddo yy oreduioy ‘yode8piig jo yuauidojaasp Burpying ey} pue suejd yo[q pue jo] oY} Jo JeaIdAé} are aaoqe UMOYS SYDO[F OY] BANAAY WLAOW ZONAAV Jaanv't LaszaLs OWITSOA AL3gaLS ANwe LAFaALE WLNnsson AOWAAY “IwaLWao LAIALS WOLSITIM BAWHAY WMV TNOOND 432818 ABTA a 8 = te Ea | =a ces ES ~adalds av AWAY dOOM LagaLo AwaowLs, daca [eee LasaLe GOOMNTT SONAAVY NOIWO es Hegel alae AOWaAY TTtoAaaWw> eee re ee ee. aazgale Wwwu0ow 44 *souoz ZuIp[ing [eQuepises snoliea Jo} suoljo1Ijse1 pasodoid oy} YIM sdUepI0INe ul qyuauidojaaep jo sojdurexe se ANOZ LNaWSaNAL SasnoH ATW OML ANOZ “IVILNAISAYN we (aR RE RSE SORE AD Ste eS ESD oe Dae ‘sy0]q [e21d4q Ino} jo uswaZueLe pasodoid oy} Moys suresZuIp asoy] GACNOW- AWv4 TIONIS ANOZ ‘TWILNAGISAY wZ 3 Ih =e) 3 ar: ai iy ro Po rl ce: | aU i | Eg/Lok ae 8) ORR = RRR aNOZ TVILNAGISAY xh Ge Dervper lps “i g ty LoS ge afpohinet 45 yodaspug url uewZury10M Joy pasodoid asnoy jo adAéj a8eyoo oy} ayensny! 0} peredeid yaje¥ys yodespiug ul uaUIsUIyIOM 103 pasodoid asnoy jo adA} MOA Bde119} OY} 9JeINSNI]! 0} parzedeid yojeys V pasodoad yueurdojaaap asnoy dnoi8 pue peysejop-wias jo ajdurexa uy = “seele Aeld [fees 109 adeds yo aduUEMOT]E YIM B19" OY} 0} sasNoY QT 0} B eplAoid 0} se Os paptAIpgns ‘ylodeZpiig yseq Ul je4} B19" BAY Poqeoo] Ayyesque. vy 48 the other side is occupied with single-family houses. The end lots are irregular in size, while those on the side streets are fairly uniform. The normal width is 40 feet and the depth 100 feet. 2. No. 2 is ina thickly built up section of the East End, back from the main through street. The Bunnell Street frontage is made up almost entirely of 3 story, 6 family flats with some stores. The Central Avenue frontage is occupied by 2 and 21/4, story dwellings. There is some variety in lot sizes, the normal lot being about 38 ft. x 125 ft.; end lots 50 ft. x 100 ft. 3. No. 3 is in the Maplewood district. The houses are fairly uniform, 2!/. stories in height, evenly spaced. Normal lot 40 ft. x 105 ft. There is a 18 ft. set back on Beechwood Avenue; a 12 ft. set back on Linwood Avenue. 4. No. 4 is in the old Barnum Subdivision. Great variety of lot sizes, and corresponding variety in use, ranging from | story wooden store to 3 story brick block, and from a very small 2 story single family house to a 3 story, six family flat. The lots are for the most part 100 ft. deep, but vary from 50 ft. square to 55 ft. x 100 ft., the smallest frontage being 30 ft. 5. No. 5 is in a newly built up district to the west of North Main Street. The houses are nearly all of one type, viz:—2 story single family wooden houses, the regulation lot appears to be about 50 ft. x 100 ft. The set back is fairly uniform, being 20 ft. to house line. 6. No. 6 is in the Brooklawn district. The houses are large and with one exception single-family dwellings, 2 and 21/, stories high. The lots range in size from 50 ft. x 100 ft. to over an acre. The other set of diagrams shows what the appearance of four typical blocks would be if developed in accordance with the suggested restrictions for various building zones as indicated in the plans sub- mitted. The orderliness and openness of the blocks are the most strik- ing changes, combined with a reasonably intensive use of the property. In more detailed planning at larger scale, greater variety could be se- cured in the location and character of the buildings. These diagrams of proposed arrangements should be compared with the diagrams showing some of the existing lot and block conditions in Bridgeport. In order to insure the right arrangement of dwellings on any area, it is necessary to have legal control over the development. Otherwise, the land subdivision will not be the means of insuring a proper per- centage of open space, light, air, ventilation, and a control of the density of population. In other words, restrictions or safeguards must accompany the plan. Such questions as the strength of materials, methods of construction, etc., are regulated by housing codes and are enforced by building inspection. Garbage disposal, sanitation, ar- rangements and size of rooms for light and air, etc., are regulated by building or sanitary codes, and enforced by health officials. At the 49 present time, however, the still larger questions of the proper amount of space, light, air, ventilation, and density of population for a neigh- borhood are not adequately regulated nor controlled by the public. Such a code of regulations should be adopted and power given to the City Plan Commission to see that all new city extensions conform to the requirements. An outline of the more important points follows:— PROPOSED CODE OF REGULATIONS. 1. Location of building on lot. (a) Orientation (in reference to whole block). (b) Set back from street. (c) Side line restriction. (d) Back line restriction. 2. Size of building. (a) Minimum size of lot. (b) Percentage of lot to be covered. 3. Character of building. (a) Determined by zones in which lot is located. (b) Height restriction. 4. Accessories. (a) Garbage or stable. (b) Out-buildings. (c) Fences. 1. Location of building on lot. (a) Orientation: The frontage of the lot should be deter- mined by the general scheme for the entire block. In the case of rectangular planning the only question that would arise would be on corner lots. In irregular plats, other, than corner lots would have more than one side bounded by a street. In all cases where the lot abuts on two or more streets it would be necessary to specify which side is to be considered the front. (b) Set back from street: The front line of all dwellings should be back at least 10 feet from the street line. In cases where a special arrangement of buildings is desired the build- ing line should be established by special regulation. (c) Side line restriction: No detached or semi-detached building should be erected nearer the side lines of the property than 10 feet. (d) Back line restriction: No building used for residential purposes should be allowed nearer the rear line than 10 feet, and no other building should be allowed nearer than 5 feet to the back line. 50 2. Size of building. (a) Minimum size of lot: No single-family house should be allowed to be erected on a lot less than 40 feet wide and 100 feet deep. No semi-detached house should be allowed on a lot each half of which is less than 30 feet in width and 100 feet in depth. No two-family house should be allowed on a lot less than 60 feet in width and 100 feet deep. (b) Percentage of lot to be covered. No building should be erected for residential purposes that covers more than 30% of the entire area of the lot. 3. Character of building. (a) Determined by zones in which lot is located: No build- ing should be erected except in accordance with the restrictions for the special zone or building district in which it is located. (b) Height restriction: No dwelling should be allowed that is more than 21, stories in height. Where the basement has more than half its height above ground, it would be considered a story. 4. Accessories. (a) Garage or stable: No garage or stable should be nearer the front of the lot than 60 feet, except in cases where a garage is made a part of the house building. (b) Out-buildings: No out-buildings other than a garage or stable should be erected over 12 feet in height. The total of all out-buildings should not cover more than 25% of the entire area of the lot. (c) Fences: No fence should be allowed along the street frontage or along the side lines back as far as the set back for the buildings that exceeds 4 feet in height. RESTRICTIONS SUGGESTED FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONES. The following Restrictions are suggested for various Residential Zones in Bridgeport : 1st Residential Zone: Single-family houses, and only one house to a lot. Lots to be at least 60 ft. x 120 ft. No building allowed nearer than 20 ft. to the street and 10 ft. to side and back lines. No stores allowed except by special ordinance. 2nd Residential Zone: Single- and two-family house. Single-family houses to have a lot at least 50 ft. x 100 ft.; two- family houses to have a lot at least 60 ft. x 100 ft. No building al- lowed nearer than 15 ft. to the streets and 10 ft. to other lines of property. Block houses allowed in restricted areas, but the number of 51 Reilley Street, Bridgeport Interior Reilley Street block 52 families to the acre not to be raised higher than allowed for two-family houses. Block houses to be built complete with finished ends. No building allowed nearer the streets than 15 ft. The end walls not al- lowed nearer the property line than 10 ft. No stores allowed except ‘by special ordinance. Tenement and Apartment Zones: No building to be over four stories in height. Regulations as to materials to be covered in improved building code. Buildings to be com- plete without blank end walls. End walls to be at least 10 ft. from pro- perty lines. All blocks 200 feet or over in length to have a public wagon way to rear of lots from front street, through the block; archway if desired. This is necessary as a fire protection. Stores allowed on first floor. All buildings allowed in the 2nd Residential Zone allowed here with same restrictions. Apartment houses to be allowed only in special zones indicated. They are to be of fireproof material, and not over four stories in height. Complete blocks only allowed. Stores allowed on first floor. It has been pointed out in connection with the underlying princi- ples of land subdivision that the worst results have not been due usual- ly to the low standard or the lack of fitness of the subdivision for its original purpose, but to its lack of fitness for the purpose to which there was afterwards an attempt to adapt it. Here, we believe, public regulation and control would be of the greatest benefit. A concrete example of this in Bridgeport is the study submitted of the block bounded by Reilley, Willard; Pembroke and Hallett Streets. This block is reproduced in the Report showing the conditions existing in 1876, 1896 and 1914. The history of the block follows :— A half century ago this Reilley Street block was in the midst of an open field. A few years later streets began to be cut through and about 1870 the first houses were erected. They were of the single and two-family types and were placed ten feet from the street line in the middle of lots 40 ft.—50 ft. wide and 70 ft.—100 ft. deep. This resulted in a good open development, with ample front and back yards. The owners and tenants were frugal, hard-working Irish factory hands and tradesmen whose earnings were approximately $12.00 a week. They paid rents averaging $12.00 monthly. Gradually, with one ex- ception, the whole neighborhood was built up in this same open manner. The exception was a line of tenement houses a few blocks away tenanted by the poorer Irish until they could afford the better surrounding dwellings. About 35 years ago the Frary Cutlery Co. of New Britain moved to Bridgeport and located nearby. With the factory came a number of Slavs, the unskilled workers, who found lodgings in the tenements. The Frary Co., seeing a decided business advantage in the Slav, en- couraged the latter to write to their friends in the old country to come 53 over. Asa result Slavs began to drop into Bridgeport slowly at first, but soon in ever increasing numbers, as other factories appreciated their economic value. At first they huddled in indescribable density in the tenement section which soon earned the sobriquet ‘Hell's Kitchen.” The Slav is, however, in reality a hater of squalor, and also quite ambitious. Hence little by little, he found his way into the dwellings of the Irish, where owing to his frugality he soon became the house owner. So in short order the district changed hands, the Irish being glad to sell and get away from the despised Slav. oe wos , Illustrations of undesirable types of old houses, new apartments and their relation to school in Bridgeport In the early nineties began the influx of the Italians, due to rail- road work in and about Bridgeport. Drifting naturally to the cheapest sections they found their homes in the tenements of “Hell’s Kitchen.” Frugal like the Slav, but in a different way,—the Italian took in un- limited numbers of boarders, and soon scraped together enough to rent the houses of the Slav. Other foreigners followed in the foot- steps of the Italians, among them the Jews, all competing for the dwellings of the Slavs. But now the Slav being of a finer and more industrious make-up 54 than the new-comers, soon tired of them and almost in a body moved over a mile to the north, where they built large blocks far from the dirt and unhealthiness of the ‘‘Hell’s Kitchen”’ section. The Italians and Jews not only took over the vacated houses, but built others, many of them on the interiors of lots. This practice has continued, until today we find the people herded like cattle, in blocks whose percentage of open area is decreasing each year. Here again is a slum in the making. An examination of the accompanying diagram, comparing the blocks in 1876, 1896 and 1914, will show its gradual evolution. In investigating the history of the double lot marked “A”, we find that the original houses were owned by Irish who later sold to Slavs. The latter were content to hold to the open development, but not so the Italians, who came into possession in the late nineties. They immediately built a brick three-family dwelling in the rear and about a year ago made most remarkable changes. The old house on the west side of the lot was moved to the rear of the original house on the east, the two then being joined together as shown. A large brick three story tenement for six families was then erected, leaving as the only open space a little interior court yard to which an approach 4 ft. wide leads between houses. The statistics of this lot, marked ‘‘A’’, follow:— 1876 1914 Size Lot 80 x 85' 80 x 85 Assessed Valuation $5,760 $13,000 Buildings Value — 10,000 Land — 3,000 No. of people on Lot 20 75 No. of families on Lot 4 13 Rents per month per each family, $12 $7-$8 Total rents per month $48 $94 Total rents per year $576 $1,128 Income based on assessed valuation 10% 8.8% Much more valuable than the general proposed block and lot types, perhaps, for the suggestion and guidance of the city planning authorities in Bridgeport is a concrete illustration of the laying out of an actual tract of about three hundred acres in East Bridgeport close to the new factories of the Remington Arms Company and the Union Metallic Cartridge Company. In order that this subdivision should be based upon facts and actual requirements, a careful survey «as made and the necessary data collected. The outline for this survey and the. information obtained as a result of it are given below, also the repro- duction of the map of the survey showing the data used as a basis for ‘the subdivision, and the general plan showing street extensions, school S s = iS . 7 ae . / * . ae *Approximate estimate for all figures in 1876 column. 55 5 sites, and local open spaces for the same section of East Bridgeport. In laying out this new arrangement, care has been exercised to preserve important street connections on the new city plan, which have been carried through and across the district in conformity with the topogra- phy and with sufficient width for main street purposes, as shown on the street sections. The local development between these main street conforms to an appropriate standard for small lots and minor streets. Chaos Survey showing data used as a basis for the subdivision of a section of East Bridgeport This local arrangement, however, is elastic, and could be changed and modified without affecting the main street system. By working out the plan for this area in this way we have been able to provide a main street system, the necessary local streets, and also to secure sites which will be permanently satisfactory for schools, small open spaces, and local store centers for local business. 56 SURVEY AND DATA OF LAND SUBDIVISION IN EAST BRIDGEPORT. The Outline for Survey and Statement of Maps and Data Col- lected for Subdivision of Northern Part of East Bridgeport follows: — I. Show on map the following data a. Extent of school grounds. See Map named Survey. b. oe ee park property. “6 oe as ae Order General Plan showing street extensions, school sites and local open spaces in a section of East Bridgeport c. Extent of all other city properties. See Map named Survey. d. Extent of cemeteries. e. ‘ “ all other semi- public properties. __ £. All accepted streets. 57 g. All streets graded or defined but not accepted h. All factory or other indus- trial property now in use. i. Industrial property for fu- ture use. j. Railroad property. k. Trolley lines (show single and double). l. Zone of existing buildings. m. Character of open country (show by notes). n. Zone of business and stores. Also scattered stores. II. Collect following data: a. Legal street widths in Bridgeport. b. Approximate number of new employees to be housed in immediate vi- cinity. (Include U. M. C. and neighboring factories). c. Proportion of unskilled and various classes of skilled labor. d. Average pay of different classes of skilled labor. e. Number of new houses built in this section. (Single double, block, stating num- ber or apartments). f. Types of new houses and prices. g. Average rental of new houses. (Give locations of a number of figures). h. Typical lot dimensions in this vicinity. i. Size of lots now being sold and prices. (Locate ex- amples). 58 See Map named Survey. 50 ft. Conservative estiraate 4,000 families. High estimate 10,000 families. (Representative of R. A. & A. Co.) Greater majority skilled. 10% over $25. 20% over $20. 40% between $15 and $20. 30% $15 or less. See Building Permit Map. See photographs. See photographs. Average $20-$25. 40 ft. x 100 ft. 50 ft. x 100 ft. 50 ft. x 150 ft. 60 ft. x 150 ft. 40 ft. x 100 ft. on Brad- ley St. 50 ft. x 150 ft. on East gas St. near Bradley t. $800 $1200 dIBUWIUIOZ Jo Jequieyy yrodespug ay} 10} poredaid dep “AjuO 107eM YIM OsTe f10}yeM pue JoMes qJIM peplsoid Mou seaie [eiauas pure saul] ted Jo uOTjeD0] SuLmoys ‘[[Nquiniy, pue pjeysle. ‘profyesyg yo suMoO} yUsdelpe pue yodespiig jo dey sSINy 2 —— wre Gg YIMID aa) a0 ear Cores, peo Ga Sah SATLITILY WTA 1h7 sweety eregueg 45 prnwroyy I Nic es ENON wien 8 7 ASEM ONY LEWT ENMOL LNIDVCOW ONY LADILIFNNOD LAOdAIM!a I AO ALID SS oe oe NORTON GRINDING CO. Worcester, Mass. Grosvenor Atterbury, Architect Houses designed for the Norton Company’s development at Indian Hill, Worcester. The Indian Hill Company is merely the machinery used by the Norton Company and the Norton Grinding Com- pany to provide a model community for their employees. Its officers are identical with the Norton Company, so that the policy of directing the factories and the Indian Hill Company is the same. 59 j. Proportion of different na- tionalities represented among laborers. k. Proportion of married men. l. Tax rate. m. Water rate. n. Street construction costs. 60 No definite knowledge on question. Presumption is that owing to most of labor being skilled, Americans or Ameri- canized foreigners constitute major proportion. 80%. Bridgeport Ist District $10.20 - 2nd “= $ 7.80 Tract under consideration partly in Ist and partly in 2nd District. See Circular. “Ordinary granite curb 4 in. wide and 16 in. deep can be furnished and set for $.50 per foot. Concrete curb can be fur- nished and set for from $.60 to $.75 per foot. Concrete curb with gutter at- tached could be furnished from $.90 to $.95 per foot. Tar walks (mostly used in this town) run from $.05 to $.07 per square foot. Concrete walks cost from $.60 to $.90 per square foot, the price depending somewhat on the foundation. As regards the paving of the roadway, we are in a position to quote the following prices: Wood block, about $3.50 per square yard, Brick pavement, about $3.40 per square yard. Cement block on concrete foundation, from $3.00 to $3.25 per square yard. Macadam, from $.75 to $.85 per square yard, depending somewhat on cost of excava- tion and foundation. The various patent pavements used, vary so much in prices THE ELLEN WILSON HOMES Washington, D. C. Type “ D ” COE rx | 4 Ss Cor S Ss SS Darra Cos CHAMBER CHAMBER @-0%73"0" 7340+ 9°0" | | | a2! First Floor Plan Second Floor Plan Third Floor Plan Schenck & Mead, Architects House: Size outside 14 ft. x 24 ft. Lot: Size of lot 14 ft. x 95 ft. (Estim.) No: of rooms 5 rooms and bath Improvements All city mprovements All Cost of house and lot i 3 p per family $1,608.00 Material Brick and stucco Rent $17.00 per month These houses are to be built by the District of Columbia section of the Women’s Department of the Civic Federation. There are to be 130 houses providing for 250 families. The scheme includes at least four different types or two, three, four and five rooms. The architects hold that the best results of light and air depend upon the relative designs of the houses in their combination in the whole plan.” A row of types of one kind would be quite inferior. The variety of the plans of the houses also gives a natural opportunity for variety in the elevations. 61 o. Information as to rise in land values during last year. III. Make following inquiries: a. What development schemes if any are proposed in this territory ? 62 that the companies furnishing them can quote you better prices than we can.” Have practically doubled. Lots 50 ft. x 150 ft. on E. Main St. opposite York St. one year ago valued at $600, today at $1200. Bond St. lots shown on photograph, 50 ft. x 100 ft. a year and a half ago valued at $400, today $1000. Spargo & Winter. In Fairfield close to car line. 4 room cottages on large lots. Total cost land’ and buildings to be under $2000. 6 houses to acre. (Sec’y Housing Associa- y g tion. ) R. A. & A. Co. At Barnum, Helen, Hallett and Berkshire Sts. | twelve-family apartment house, brick. 1 four-family apartment house, brick. _ 6 six-family apartment houses, brick. Several include stores on street floor. 5 rooms and bath. Rent $18—$20. R. A. & A. Co. At Pixlee Place, East Ave., Willow and Bishop Sts., Bar- num and Boston Aves. 19 Wooden one, two and three-family houses on lots 40 ft. x 100 ft., rents $15—$20. 24 brick two-family houses on lots 50 ft. x 100 ft., rents $25. All apartments include 5 rooms and bath. (Above houses now being built.) 70 more brick of above type to be built here. Standard Buildings, Inc. Attempting to raise $500,000 FOREST HILLS GARDENS Long Island, New York Sage Foundation Homes Company Exterior and interior illustrations of the great possibilities in unit concrete construction. 63 b. What is the method of pro- curing public utilities in a new area? IV. Obtain the following maps, etc.: a. Extra prints of Schrewe’s plan. b. Copy of new building ordi- nance. c. Any existing subdivision maps of tracts in this vicini- ty. d. Any pamphlets or circulars of land companies operat- ing here. e. Recent publications in re- gard to Bridgeport, such as Chamber of Commerce or Housing Association might issue. 64 in Bridgeport, $1,000,000 to be supplied by New York backers. Single-family houses to be of stucco and hollow tile. Cost $1800, 6 rooms and bath. Lot cost $600—$800. Rent $28 per month for 15 years, when house passes into hands of tenant. Location suggested, Lordship Manor. Philadelphia Type House. Rumored that a Bridgeport property owner is to build from 100 to 300 of this type on lots 16 ft. x 100 ft. to rent at $25 per month. Site suggested, bounded by Noble, E. Main, Rose & Hick- ory Sts. Gas Co. Mains already laid on Palisade Ave. to Grandfield St. and of a size to feed district to north. 150 ft. is usual limit of extension for single house, but if indications are that a dis- trict will be further developed, exceptions are made. Mains are also laid on Boston Ave. to News Ave. Street Cars. Movement already under way to double track and extend Boston Ave. Car Line. These have been obtained. This also has been obtained. None other than those clearly shown on Survey. None to be obtained. Housing Association memo- randum of data used to push campaign for building ordi- nance. IMPROVED HOUSING ASSOCIATION New Haven, Connecticut } aca a ee CNAMBER || CHAMBER 749% 1"0" 74974/-0" Laine Room Living Room 4S1+3" 14S" ESB° 9" 19" First Floor Plan Second Floor Plan Mann & MacNeille, Architects House: Size outside 22 ft.x 27 ft. approx. Lot: Size of lot 22 ft. x 70 ft. approx. No. of rooms a ary and bath Improvements Usual oe aaa eel Cost of building $2,800. Material Concrete ee Cost of lot ee TCO GO Date of erection 1914 Total $2,950.00 Cost of house and lot per family $1,475.00 Rent $12.00 per month The Improved Housing Association in New Haven is a corporation with a limited dividend of 5%, founded for the purpose of providing attractive and sanitary houses at low rentals for the working people of New Haven. ‘ 65 The general conclusions of the Survey on the basis of above re- turns, is that at least 8,000 more dwellings would be necessary before next spring. As to the kind of houses demanded, the data seems to indicate the following: —Greatest demand for $18 rentals, then $15, then $20, and lastly $22-$25. One of the most notable advances which Bridgeport has made in connection with land subdivision and housing is the Building Code ordinance which was adopted by the City in September, 1915. This was brought about by a campaign in which the City Plan Commission actively co-operated. From the point of view of this chapter, one of its most important regulations is that ‘‘No frame dwelling shall be hereafter erected or altered over two stories in height or to be occupied by more than four families.” It came in the nick of time, and was the means of saving Bridgeport to a considerable extent from the speculator and cheap builder, and reducing the fire hazard which is proving such a menace to many New England cities. The conflagra- tion in Fall River, Mass. on February 16, 1916 is the most recent ex- ample, and illustrates the folly of American cities in permitting the construction of buildings involving such high fire risks and such un- favorable conditions for public health. In the account of the Fall River fire appears the following reterence:— Gazing today upon the tottering walls and smoking ashes of a score of buildings, the ruins of which, after last night's big fire, cover an entire block two acres in area, citizens of Fall River awoke to realization of the costly lesson that had been forced upon them, and they resolved that with the task of rebuilding the heart of their business section they would eliminate so far as possible the menace that lurks in flimsy wooden construction within the crowded inner frre district. Mayor Clifford B. Wilson, of Bridgeport, in commenting on this ordinance and its effect upon housing says: — In general, the law meets approval, and any effort to repeal would meet with a storm of protest from the majority of our citizens. This law is some- thing I have been fighting for, for years, and it is a great personal satisfaction to see it now in successful operation. I firmly believe that all manufacturing interests in our city are much interested in the housing conditions of the city. The Remington Arms are showing themselves glad to co-operate. [| think the manufacturers are realizing this more and more daily, and all are glad that re aed the factory, but the buildings built for homes, are being well and safely built. The manufacturers find that expenditures to increase comfort and wel- fare are an asset in the increase of production, they also tend to solidify their organizations; and finally, on the basis of abstract justice, | personally believe the worker is entitled to such a share of that wealth produced as will maintain the worker at his best. This is obvious economics, it is really primary common sense and the fact that we are not more nearly to this basis in all our industrial growth in our cities is a strange commentary on our civilization. Bridgeport is on the up grade. 66 The Remington Arms Company did not move very early in the matter of housing its employes, but when it did act, it acted with vigor and as a result nearly a thousand families have been provided with new houses of desirable types for workingmen. The representative of the Company in charge of the building of homes for employees of the Remington Arms Company and the Union Metallic Cartridge Com- pany has recently made the following statement :— Every large manufacturer who may see what we are doing will want to know what the motive or incentive of these companies is in this housing de- velopment. Is it charity? Is it a gratuity or a means of paying larger wages to employees? Or is it just a big experiment and the outcome still uncertain? This development is in nowise a philanthropic or gratuitous movement but is based primarily on common sense; contributed to by the ability to purchase materials and erect in quantity and to bring about a development in well planned order. But order does not mean sameness, as you will later see. This development is definitely an investment that will not only pay all carrying charges but will be an interest paying investment. We will have a development that any other large employer or small employer of labor may safely be guided by. We purchased tracts of land lying near the plant buildings and after moving the few frame dwellings standing thereon we laid out two main avenues leading directly from the plant through the district intended for the homes. We have laid out two large circles on these avenues and these will be made beautiful with a small park in the centre. Main avenues connect these circles and the residence streets are methodically located, communicating with the main arteries, the avenues. At the present time we have built or have in progress the following houses: Forty of the four-family buildings, they are double two-family flats with brick fire wall in centre of building running up through roof with parapet. Nine group houses of eleven families, each family separated by fire walls. Twelve single-family houses of attractive Colonial design and twelve double houses of similar architecture with excellent porches. None of these double houses is more than two stories. This development for 225 families is largely built and occupied now. In another section are seventy-six two-family houses with uniform floor plans but with much architectural variation which makes the group one of distinctive and individual houses and in no sense monotonous. Twenty-four are now occupied and after April first one will be delivered for occupancy daily of the remaining fifty-six. For some of our female employees we are building seven dormitories for 125 girls in each. In these dormitories the conditions will be more like college life than otherwise and after most careful thought and consultation with those whose experience could best advise us we planned this dormitory life for some of our girl employees. The type of construction of these dormi- tories is of high-class apartment house type. We have also planned two hundred houses of modified Philadelphia type, two rooms deep front to back. Seven six-family and one twelve-family apart- ments are now built and occupied. In all, nearly one thousand families are provided for or are now planned for. 67 Our development includes street building and sewer building and paved and curbed service alleys at rear of yards. Streets will be paved with some pavement approved by the city authorities. We are actually carrying out the best ideals that are usually back of good building and good housing laws, and are in no case hunting for or building the minimum. Rentals are and will be actually 25 per cent less than rentals for the same amount of room and for probably far less community advantages in the ordi- nary run of rental properties elsewhere in the city. We can do this largely because of our economies. We have saved some of our first cost by our large operation. Some of our chief economies will be in the maintenance ‘of proper- ty. We have built almost entirely of brick construction. Our buildings offer very little exposure risk to each other, have slate roofs and we get the very lowest of dwelling insurance rates. 68 ‘syzed pure siaqua UOTyeeID91 ‘sayoIny ‘s[ooyos ‘syyey yeloos ‘spuno8de]d 10} apeur st uorsIAold ereqry] =“ajoym & se pooyloqysieu ey} jo aoueivedde poos pur a1e}joM 9Y} 0} aINqUyUOD OF epeUT YORE Inq qesu ul Ao Rjsyes pue oja[duroo yoes ‘suepres pue sowoy Ajrurey ajsuis aarsuadxeut “uelusAu0s ‘uzapour aprAoid 0} peusisep st asey{IA UepIeH yesuodayy uolsstuU0) ue[g A}IZ) 0} [esodoid ayeysniI 0} peredaid ‘4uode8pug uompoyem yelgsnpuy jo 49394 V DIFFERENT DISTRICTS FOR DIFFERENT USES SHOWING LOCATION AND PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS. The Preliminary Report of Bridgeport included statements with regard to building zones in Bridgeport and also a proposed industrial district on the water front, but no action has been taken yet on these matters by the City Plan Commission. Therefore this report is only a tentative one, and it has not been worked out in any detail. Two diagramatic plans are submitted, one showing by different legends Present Building Distribution, giving business, industrial, various types of residential, parks, and unbuilt-on private areas; the other a diagram of Proposed Building Zones, showing by different legends business, industrial, various types of residential, and park areas. To appreciate the significance of the proposed building zones, reference should be made to the other diagrams also submitted,’ giving Relative Duration of Different Winds, Distribution of Population, Range in Land Values, General Plan for Proposed Development, showing main lines of communication, etc., Existing Park Areas, Proposed Park System, Building Permits, Key Plan to Accompany Industrial Survey, and General Plan of the Down Town District. Nothing further has been done with the plan for the proposed Industrial District shown east of Bridgeport on the Stratford water front. In view of the phenomenal industrial expansion of Bridgeport, it would seem that this recommendation could be followed with great advantage, especially if it took a form as complete as that represented by the Bush Terminal Company in South Brooklyn, N. Y. A concrete definition of an industrial district would include a productive com- munity self-contained from the time of the receipt of the raw material to the shipment of the finished product, with common interest among the several producers as to the elements of general facilities covered, the rentals, power, taxes, insurance, and transportation facilities.” So far as possible, the proposed building zones are based upon ex- isting conditions, but they indicate the possibility of guiding future development so as to provide a more natural separation of buildings for different uses and a more orderly extension and development of the several districts. The Zone Map would also make possible the pro- vision of much better facilities for business and industrial districts, and more appropriate surroundings for residential districts. The division includes, as shown on the diagram, sections for Business, In- dustrial, Parks and Open Spaces, First Residential, Second Residential, and Tenement. These divisions are based entirely upon the use of buildings, and not upon their bulk, covering height and area districting. The regulation of the heights of buildings has been covered in Chapter ‘Some of these diagrams are in the Preliminary Report to the Bridgeport City Plan Commission. "See chapter on “Railroads and Industrial Districts’ by George R. Wadsworth in ‘City Planning”, National Municipal League Series, D. Appleton & Co. 1916. 71 West Shore Pequonnock River looking north from Congress Street Bridge Dusseldorf waterfront 72 [arramensneerseerer East Shore Pequonnock:River_looking north from Congress7Street Bridge Dusseldorf waterfront 73° West Shore Pequonnock River looking north from Washington Avenue Bridge, Bridgeport Dresden. The River Front near August Brucke 74 East shore Pequonnock River looking north from Washington Avenue Bridge, Bridgeport (Compare with Municipal Pier in Baltimore, page 78) Mainz. View of the Rhine 75 pa Bush Terminal railroad yard operated by this Company. Accommodation for 2,000 standard cars Bush Terminal plant. View from a balloon 76 III, on the Down Town District, and the recommendations for the con- trol of percentage of areas to be built upon in the residential district : in Chapter IV, on the Subdivision of City Land into Blocks and ots. , In establishing the boundaries of building districts, both the rights of the community and the rights of private property owners should be fairly considered. In the long run, | believe that these in- terests will prove much more nearly identical than they are generally believed to be, and that one of the strongest reasons for districting a city is that it makes general real estate values in all sections higher and more stable. The legal questions involved in districting have been covered thoroughly in the report of Mr. Frank B. Williams. By reference to his report, which is here appended in full, it will be found that Bridgeport has at present the right to regulate buildings so as to secure stability and safety from fire. Moreover, the present charter authorizes the city to pass ordinances “‘relative to any and all other subjects that shall be deemed necessary and appropriate for the pro- tection and preservation of the health, property and lives of the citi- zens.” Under this charter Bridgeport may limit the height and the area of buildings by district requirements which may, in the light of modern knowledge, opinion and practice, require a fairly large per- centage of the lot for dwellings and a smaller percentage for indus- tries and for business to be left open for access of light, sun, and air. Bridgeport may also divide the city into residential and industrial dis- tricts, excluding from the residential districts by name or description all industries which, in the light of modern requirements, tend to injure the public health. In the districts really meant for business the height and area limitation should be such as to encourage business buildings; therefore they would probably be built there, and there only. In the same way Bridgeport may create districts from which all but one-family houses would be practically excluded; others in which only one or two-family houses would be built; and still others where it would be economically possible, so far as the area and height limitations were concerned, to construct residences of all sorts, includ- ing tenements. The most instructive example for American cities of the problems connected with the establishment of different building districts is to be found in the history of New York City, and the present effort to check the evil effects of unregulated growth, especially upon real estate and business interests. The Report of the Heights of Buildings Commission issued in 1913 shows existing conditions, and the more recent Tentative Report of the Commission on Building Districts and Restrictions presented to the Board of Estimate and Apportionment in March, 1916, gives an outline of the methods now proposed for improving conditions in New York City, and providing for better and more stable future development. New York and Bridgeport are in 77 Factories, Remington Arms, Bridgeport Municipal Lumber Piers, Baltimore, Md. 78 many respects different, yet the same principles of growth apply, and the same necessity for proper public regulation. Bridgeport, however, is in a position to adopt higher standards than New York City in its zone system. The Report of the New York Commission on Building Districts and Restrictions deals so ably and directly with the whole subject that the following selected extracts from that Report are here presented :— The present almost unrestricted power to build to any height, over any portion of the lot, for any desired use and in any part of the city, has resulted in injury both to the health, safety and general welfare of the city and to real estate and business interests. Light, air and access have been impaired by high buildings, by failure to provide adequate courts and yards, by the prox- imity of inappropriate or nuisance buildings and uses. A certain degree of order and system in building development is essential both from the point ‘of view of public health, safety and welfare and that of the conservation of property values. Every city becomes divided into more or less clearly defined districts of different occupation, use and type of building construction. We have the central office and financial district, loft districts, waterfront and industrial districts, retail business districts, apartment house and hotel districts, tenement house districts, private dwelling districts. Generally speaking, a building is appropriately located when it is in a section surrounded by buldings of similar type and use. Strong social and economic forces work toward a natural segregation of buildings according to type and use. In general, the maximum land values and the maximum rentals are obtained where this segregation and uniformity are most complete. One purpose of districting regulations is to strengthen and supplement the natural trend toward segregation. In spite of the natural trend toward segregation, building development in many parts of the city is haphazard. The natural trend toward segregation and uniformity is not strong enough to prevent the sporadic invasion of a district by harmful or inappropriate buildings or uses. Once a district has been invaded, rents and property values decline, and it is difficult ever to reclaim the district to its more appropriate use. Individual property owners are help- less to prevent the depreciation of their property. The districting plan will do for the individual owners what they cannot do for themselves—set up uniform restrictions that will protect each against his neighbor and thus be of benefit to all. While in New York City economic forces tend to the segregation of in- dustries of the heavier type along the water and rail terminals, and to the segregation of certain light industries near the wholesale, retail, hotel and passenger terminal center in Manhattan, there are many kinds of light industry that are free from any segregating force and locate indiscriminately through- out the city. They are found scattered throughout the business and residential sections, especially the residential sections from which their labor supply is recruited. The factory is a blight on the residential section. It destroys the comfort, quiet and convenience of home life. There is nothing more vital to the city than the housing of its people. There is nothing more essential to wholesome and comfortable housing than the exclusion of trade and industries from the residential streets, stores, garages and other business buildings scat- tered among the residences are a constant menace to residence property. The concentration of all the neighborhood business buildings on the business streets makes the transaction of business more convenient. The segregation of dwel- 79 LSS as ee CITY: OF: BRIDGEPORT RANGE IN -LAND VALUES DIAGRAM BASED ON FIGURES SUPPLIED BY THE~BOARD OF ASSESSORS 80 lings on the exclusively residential streets adds to the convenience, quiet, attractiveness and amenities of home life, and thus tends to increase property values on such streets. The maximum beneficial use of any given block or area is also largely dependent on a certain measure of uniformity in its development as regards height, yards and open spaces. Such use would, in general, be enhanced if the property owners could enter into an agreement uniformly restricting- the height of buildings and fixing the minimum area of courts and yards. The size of courts and yards is in most cases of as much benefit to a man’s neigh- bors as to himself. It is therefore appropriate that each should contribute in substantial equality to the common stock of light and air. There can be no maintenance of wholesome conditions of light and air and no stability of values if each individual owner is at liberty to build to any height and over any proportion of his lot without regard to his appropriate and reasonable contribution to the light and air of the block. The speculative builder puts up the first high building in a block. The windows are on property lines or on narrow courts. Perhaps a five-foot rear yard is provided. But with all the free space on the adjacent lots the building is light and airy, is attractive to tenants and shows a good return to the purchaser. Other buildings follow and their builders see no reason why they should keep down lower or provide larger yards or courts than the first. The result is tragic from either a private or a public point of view. Tenants move away from the congested centers in order to secure better light and-air. But if after a few years the bright sunny building to which they have moved becomes surrounded by buildings similar in height, yard and court provisions to the biulding in the congested center in which they were formerly located, the desirability of the new location for this class of tenants disappears and rentable values are likely to be seriously impaired. A proper districting plan will insure that wherever probable intensity of demand will permit, a certain measure of the improved light and air conditions that have attracted tenants to the new location shall be permanently retained. In es- tablishing light and air provisions the district plan will not usually go as far and will in no case go further than the purely economic standard indicated by the mutual advantage of property owners and tenants. The plan is substantially limited to regulations which, while essential to the public health, safety and general welfare, are at the same time of mutual advantage to all property owners. They will conserve and tend to improve values throughout the city. This conservative use of the districting power will not accomplish many things that are doubtless important in the interest of well-ordered city growth, but the plan as outlined will constitute the most important step yet taken by any American city toward the direction of its building development in accord with a well-considered plan. In a “residence district’, only buildings with their usual accessories de- signed for the following specified uses may be constructed: Private residences and apartments; hotels; private clubs; religious, educational, curative and philanthropic buildings and institutions. In a “‘business district’, a list of specified industries and uses of a clearly objectionable character are excluded, as are also all other uses that are noxious or offensive by reason of the emission of noise, odor, dust or gas. An excep- tion, however, is made in the case of garages, livery stables, car barns and places of amusement. While it would seem desirable to keep public garages off of business streets, public convenience seems to require their location in close proximity to the residential and local business areas. The larger type of factory is excluded from the business districts by limiting the floor space that may be occupied for factory uses in any one building in a business district of 25 per 81 TAL SH WL. Single Houses on ample dots CITY - OF- BRIDGEPORT PRESENT: BUILDING « DISTRIBUTION JOHKN NOLEN : LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT CAMBRIDGE -MABS. 1918 3 ou N 5 ISLAND G 82 SS Se = Vi ‘ \\ Ss yA 0 in Q < Sa ~ 3 at ES = & Parks & Qoen Spaces APE ARCHITECT So u No CITY OF BRIDGEPORT CAMBRIDGE >MASS. wis PROPOSED BUILDING ZONES 1S LAND JOAN NOLEN LANDSC RESIDENTIAL ht Residential FRIRFIELD 83 Pequonnock River from East Washington Avenue Bridge, Bridgeport, looking south toward Congress Lake Torpedo Boat Works, Bridgeport, from Long Island Sound to the south-west 84 cent. of the total. floor space of the building, but floor space equal to twice the ground floor area of the building may in any case be so used. The proposed regulations apply only to future buildings and uses, and do not interfere with any existing structure or occupancy. The remaining portions of the city not included in the residence or busi- ‘ness districts are left unrestricted as to use. These include large areas chiefly along the waterfront and railroads where an industrial use either exists or is anticipated, and also certain large areas in the undeveloped sections where either a residential or industrial use may prove the more epprcnEate, depend- ing largely on future port and terminal developments. Five classes of height districts are provided limiting the height of the building at the street line to a varying multiple of the street width. These multiples vary from two and one-half times the street width in the office and financial section of Manhattan to one times the street width in the more un- developed sections of Brooklyn, The Bronx, Queens and Richmond. Lordship Boulevard looking toward Bridgeport Open sountry—feclamation possible—then development along lines embodying principles recognized as good city planning Back of the street wall, the height of which is limited by a multiple of the ‘street width, the building may go higher, but not beyond the line formed by the extension of a line drawn from the center of the street to the limiting height of the street wall. This will permit the construction of mansards or of vertical walls provided they are set back in a prescribed ratio so as to keep within set-back provisions. This will give a much greater freedom of build- ing construction than a flat limitation of height. It will allow any height of building back of the street line that will not interfere with the prescribed angle of light. Towers covering not over 25 per cent of the lot and unlimited as to height are also permitted provided they conform to certain regulations as to set-back from lot lines. In limiting the height of all buildings in relation to width of the streets on -which-they abut, the Commission has adopted a principle which for a ‘great many years (since 1885) has been applied to tenement. house construction. in 85 New York City. It has also been extensively applied in European cities. It has evident advantages over a flat limitation that operates without regard to the width of the street. The Commission has, however, modified the strict application of this principle by providing that for the purpose of computing the limiting height on the multiple of street width basis a street less than 50 feet wide shall be considered to be 50 feet wide, and a street more than 100 feet wide shall be considered to be but 100 feet wide. The Commission has been asked to recommend a restriction against ‘apartment houses in various private dwelling districts that are threatened with an invasion of apartment houses. Such a restriction would, in many cases, un- doubtedly conserve property values. In a good residential section the coming of the apartment house usually means a considerable loss to all owners of private houses. The slight increase in the value of the land is not sufficient to offset the distinct depreciation in the value of the building. Sometimes the apartment is a mere parasite. There would be no economic reason for its construction were it not for the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the private dwelling character of the neighborhood. This economic reason is destroyed by the erection of a few apartment houses and at the same time private dwelling values are greatly depreciated. Under such conditions a restriction against apartment houses would be of undoubted social and economic value.” Following the Report of the Commission on Building Districts and Restrictions are the drafts of two Resolutions of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, one regulating the location of trades and industries and the location of buildings designed for specified uses and establishing the boundaries of districts for such purposes, and the other regulating the height of buildings and the area of their courts and yards and establishing the boundaries of districts for such purposes.” The public control of private real estate by means of restrictions and the establishment of building districts has been making sound progress recently. The necessity of this control has become more and more apparent to the public, and what perhaps is more important in getting action, the advantages of such control are now becoming more evident to the private owners of real estate. The Advisory Council of the Real Estate Interests in New Yory City has recently en- dorsed some of the most important recommendations of the Com- mission of Building Districts and Restrictions. It has practically turned against its own sky-scraper, and admits that the present almost unrestricted power to build to any height has resulted not*only in injury to the health and safety of the city, but also to real estate and business interests. It now recognizes that light and air and access, which are among the chief factors in fixing rentable values, have been seriously impaired by excessively high buildings, and by the proximity of inappropriate buildings which virtually constitute a nuisance. Another example of the progress of building district proposals in *These Resolutions were adopted by the Board of Estimate and A; ti t 1 25, 1916, thus putting the Building Districts law into effect. ERD TORCES OH a? 86 connection with city planning is the official adoption by the City Com- mission of Sacramento of the recommendations which | recently pre- sented for zoning the city. A great deal of the City Commission’s time has been taken up during the past year in deciding controversies be- tween home owners and those who wished to locate various industries, from a blacksmith’s shop and garage to a big oil plant. The members of the Commission have been so harassed in connection with this work that it finally dawned upon them that they could rid themselves of these controversies and at the same time improve conditions by the adoption of a city plan, definitely locating, as it does, manufacturing zones of various characters and also residential districts. This action has met general approval. uolyeAtasa1 xed e& jo ajduexe suy y ‘“yodespug ‘y1eg episeag 88 VI PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS, AND OTHER OPEN SPACES GIVING LOCATION, USE, AND EXAMPLES OF APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT.* The more important points to note in connection with the subject of parks, playgrounds, and other open spaces for Bridgeport are— 1. That the modern idea of parks should be adopted by Bridge- port, establishing a greater number and variety of public recreation spaces. We print herewith in full, the report of the Sub-Committee of the Com- mission upon Mr. Nolen’s recommendation for the Parks. Since this report was filed, the plan shown in our Preliminary Report for parkways along a cer- tain waterfront soon to be occupied for industrial purposes has been modified by reducing such park areas, in pursuance of the suggestion below, and the modified form is shown on page 99 of this book. *1REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE ON PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS. City Planning Commission, Gentlemen :— Your Committee who were requested to look over the preliminary report to the City Planning Commission on parks and playgrounds, as presented by Mr. John Nolen, have to say that they have personally inspected in a general way the land indicated in the diagram on Page 31 of Mr. Nolen’s (Prelim- inary) report, or so much of it as was not well known to them, and find his recommendations in a general way very good. Considering the acquisition of park surface separate from playgrounds, we find that the land indicated on this diagram lying south of Mountain Grove Cemetery consisting of some upland and considerable salt marsh on Ash Creek, could be utilized for park purposes to advantage, and undoubtedly it would be desirable to cross the Creek on to the Fairfield side and acquire additional surface. It would appear, however, that it would be necessary to act at once in this case, as the surface will be occupied by buildings in the near future. A similar opportunity and necessity for prompt action exists north of Mountain Grove Cemetery and south of the Brooklawn district, and the valu- ations here have undoubtedly increased within the last few years. The triangular surface shown on this diagram further up at the junction of Park Ave. and the highway leading off from Brooklawn Ave., consists of a good piece of upland quite suitable for formal park surface or recreation pur- poses in the near future. In the extreme northerly and westerly portion of the city there is consider- able acreage that would be valuable for woodland park purposes, and a con- siderable portion of this surface is now owned by the Hydraulic Co., and it is possible that some arrangement could be entered into whereby this land could be made available, and it would be wise for the city at this time to acquire a substantial acreage in this district while the cost per acre is not prohibitive. The surface indicated on the diagram south of Beardsley Park, and com- prehending practically the shores of what is known as Berkshire Mill Pond, offers splendid opportunity for park development, and the use of this surface for park purposes has been suggested at various times in the past by different 89 yodaspug ‘yeg Ae[spieeg 90 2. That the areas selected which are intended for the general use of the entire city should be chosen, so far as possible, with regard to the formation of a connected park system. 3. That the increase of park lands should keep pace with the increase of the population of the city. 4. That the importance of the school building as a center for play- ground activities should be increasingly recognized, more especially in the new school centers. ones. It would undoubtedly +e necessary to acquire these water rights, and some adjacent shore property. On the east side of the Pequonnock River and North of Boston Avenue the recent industrial development would indicate that land should be acquired further east in Stratford. Without any intent to criticise, it would appear that this diagram compre- hended parkways or cultivated surfaces along the water front now or soon to be occupied for industrial, or shipping purposes, the cost of which to acquire would be.almost prohibitive, together with a doubt as to the propriety of doing so. We fully concur with Mr. Nolen’s suggestion that more park surface should be acquired at once, it being obvious that the available surfaces lying near at hand will be built upon in the near future, and the outlying surfaces will enhance in value. In the matter of playgrounds and recreation parks: First, and foremost, his recommendation to acquire what is known as Steeplechase Island stands out prominent, and steps should be taken immediately to acquire it. It is quite possible that under the administration of a proper commission such a park could be operated at a profit sufficient to pay the interest on a bonded indebtedness incurred for its purchase, and the public receive the benefit of an orderly and well conducted amusement park at minimum charges. In the matter of playgrounds for small children, the conditions are already such that it is hard to find open land in any ward of the city for this purpose, at the same time it is Nationally recognized that the establishment of such play- grounds is advantageous. In an industrial city, such as we are, it would be ad- vantageous and profitable if at least six—four acre—squares, located in different wards of the city, could be acquired for athletic purposes, and under present conditions they would be principally used for baseball and football, and to accomplish this'‘it would be necessary to purchase land already built upon, but it would probably pay to do this. In the matter of designating certain streets and avenues as boulevards, and placing the care and control of such under the supervision of the Park Department, your committee, while recognizing that this is done in many cities with good results, does not feel that it is necessarily a matter for im- mediate action, but it recommends that in the laying out of new avenues or streets, or considering the building lines of older ones, that the recommenda- tions of Mr. Nolen be kept in mind, looking to the maintenance of sufficient width on such streets or avenues as would be available for a connecting system between park surfaces. Considering the park subject as a whole, with the future in mind, it re- solves itself into ‘‘what can or cannot” the city afford to do at the present -time in the way of appropriation of funds for the acquisition of park surface. Respectfully submitted: GEO. M. EAMES BERNARD KEATING Committee. 91 2% of crowd at water sports carnival, Connecticut River, Riverside Park, Hartford 92 5. That the opportunity to secure a city forest and other large natural reservations in outlying areas beyond the present city bound- aries should be embraced. The demand for more parks and playgrounds for growing cities is general. Scarcely any American city has failed to hear it, and many of them have responded liberally to its insistent call. A valuable book* dealing in a broad way with recreation and allied topics has recently been published, from which the following quotations are given as typical of present day public opinion on this subject: —‘‘A new and unique interest has suddenly arisen in play. Men and animals always played; but now we have first become conscious of play and curious about it. We insist on play. If children do not play, we teach them to play. And we are anxious to know about the theory of play. “A score of movements, perhaps many score, have sprung into notice, whose purpose is to encourage or provide some form of relaxa- tion. We recall the recreation movement; the physical-culture move- ment; the playground movement; the Boy Scouts; the Camp-Fire girls; the ever-increasing interest in athletics, not only in our colleges, but also in our high schools and grammar schools; the radical change in Young Men’s Christian Associations from devotional to hygienic and athletic religion; the renaissance of the gymnasium and the Olympic games; the increased interest in outdoor life of all kinds; the renewed devotion to outdoor sports, like tennis, golf, baseball, and football; the rapid extension of the play motive into almost every branch of education; the new vacation school and school excursions; finally the supervised playgrounds, supervised folk-dancing, super- vised swimming, wading, tramping, gardening, singing, and story- telling. Even with very young children the Montessori system seeks to relieve the tension of the old task methods by making the child's activities natural and interesting as well as useful. “More than twenty-five hundred regularly supervised play- grounds and recreation centers—the writer impressively points out— are now maintained in about six hundred and fifty cities in this country. A brand new profession has appeared, that of play leader, employing nearly seven thousand professional workers. “The legislatures of some States have passed laws requiring every city of a certain size to vote on the proposition of maintaining play- grounds. New York City exvended more than $15,000,000 on play- grounds previous to 1908. The city paid $1,811,000 for one play- ground having about three acres. Chicago spent $11,000,000 on play- grounds and field houses in two years. The changed conditions are illustrated by statements like these: ‘Formerly the boy could play on the street, in the back alley, in the back yard. Now, the alley and back yard have disappeared, the street is crowded with automobiles, and the few remaining open spaces are given over to the lawn-mower and keep-off-the-grass signs, while more and more the school has en- “Psychology of Relaxation.” By G. T. W. Patrick, Houghton Mifflin Company. 1916. 93 Chicago boulevard scenes 94 pesthanenle nett onan cater seals Pi ra PARKWAY as 7 Lo tas set Zee Af Y 3 Ltr Cafe Crt) C75 SB ME) Geek Chee) ONS oe Aaend EY Cane r2 fa Bes) ° 5 Vay ‘ ee ‘ BOULEVARD croached on the boy’s precious period of growth, filling at least nine of the twelve months of the year and adding the evils of evening study and the dread of examinations. “For reasons which will be shown presently, boys must play. Take away the opportunity for legitimate play, and the play instinct, the instinct of rivalry, of adventure, of initiation, will manifest itself in anti-social ways. Hence the juvenile court and the reform school. ‘Better, playgrounds without schools,’ says one writer, ‘than schools without playgrounds.’ ” Later on in the same volume the author discusses the outbreak of recreation and amusement crazes in America, especially dancing and the moving picture, which have passed through various stages and are now very widespread. He adds, ‘‘May it not be that these amusement crazes are a form of reaction against a manner of life that is too serious and tense. May they not be indications of a lack of physiological adjustment. We are making great efforts in these days to secure better social adjustment through the study of social and economic conditions; but is it not possible that the trouble is not in the lack of social adjustment, but in the lack of physiological adjust- ment in the individual, so that what we have to strive for is not so much improved social conditions, as improved health and improved physical constitutions, to be gained by a different manner of life, a different kind of education, and a different proportion of work and play.” 95 fe Terrace playground, Pope Park, Hartford. A Public schools field day. Roped area 390 feet x sylvan setting, and yet in the heart of a factory 110 feet. Elizabeth Park, Hartford, June, district 1913 Pope Park playground and athletic field, Hart- Bowling on the green. ford. Average attendance: Mornings, 200; Colt Park, Hartford. Afternoons, 375; Evenings, 700. Over 1,200 July 4, 1913. daily. Brooklyn. Boston. New York. Pope Park. Shop baseball diamonds. Bank in 6 Courts (Pope Park) and House with Lockers and foreground will seat 50,000 people. Used Showers and Club Room, Hartford. Always for fireworks, etc., Hartford oe 9 a.m. to 7:30 p. m., and on occasions 5:30 to 7 a.m. 96 TYPES OF OUTDOOR RECREATION GROUNDS. The term “parks” now includes not only such big recreation areas as Beardsley and Seaside Parks in Bridgeport, but also the small neighborhood centers, playgrounds, playfields, etc. These various classes or types of outdoor recreation grounds may be, for the sake of convenience, divided into seven types, as follows: — School grounds. Playgrounds for small children. Playfields for baseball and other games. Neighborhood centers. Community or large parks. Wild reservations or forests. Parkways and boulevards. SS NS These types may again be divided into two main groups; the first four representing what may be termed scattered facilities, which are repeated throughout the city, serving local neighborhoods; and the last three, connected facilities, which in the main serve the com- munity as a whole, and which so far as possible should be linked up in such a way as to form a park system. These types of outdoor recreation facilities can be very profitably and economically interrelated as suggested in the following :— Type |: Usually isolated, especially in older built up sections. Has a decided advantage in being adjacent to 2, 4, or 7; and can well be located sometimes at edge of 5 and 6. Type 2: Often isolated, but can well be included in 1, 3, 4, and 7. or on residential side of 5 and 6. Type 3: Occasionally isolated; gains by being adjacent to 7, and can be designed as part of 5 and 6. Type 4: Usually isolated, but gains by being adjacent to 7. Type 5: Independent, but should form a link in park system, being joined to other units by 7. If carefully designed, it may contain I, 2, and 3. Type 6: Independent and at a distance, but tied to system by 7. In rightly designed areas may contain |, 2, and 3. Type 7: Links in the general system. In the broader parks | and 2 can be included. The American city is becoming more and more convinced that it needs not only to provide itself with each class or type of recreation grounds, but that these grounds, so far as they are intended for the city as a whole, should be outlined, acquired, and developed as a system, each part having relation to every other part. Just as a city recognizes now that it needs a street system, a school system, a water system, a drainage system, and systems to provide for its other municipal activi- 97 WLLL Cemeteries Spt. Hydraulic Co. School Grounds swowina Ex1s TING PARK AREAS WE > < YF oe. 3S ae Z Existing Park Areas, Bridgeport 98 99 ties, so it needs a comprehensive, evenly distributed, weil developed system of parks, pleasure and exercise grounds. As yet very few American cities have been able to secure a well balanced park system. Some cities have liberal provision of public squares, but few play- grounds, parks or parkways; others have one or two large parks, but no adequate number of playgrounds; while others have parks, park- ways and playgrounds, but few, if any, open spaces in the heart of the city. As a rule, the older cities are better provided with centrally located open spaces, while the newer cities in the West are better pro- vided with outlying parks. Many examples could be given of the incomplete, one-sided and otherwise unsatisfactory way in which our so-called park systems have been developed. The public grounds of practically all of our cities have been selected and improved by isolated and desultory proceedings. In most cases this method has led to an unnecessary waste of both money and opportunity. Happily there are exceptions. With the aid of expert advice, a few of the larger cities and some of the smaller ones have conceived a park system on broad lines, and gradually, piece by piece, this system is being patient- ly acquired and executed. Twenty-five years ago Bridgeport was known as the ‘Park City’, and the name was fully justified, for Bridgeport had then a leading place among American cities in the matter of parks, with one acre to every 200 of its population, a very fair standard. At the present time, however, its position is essentially changed, due to the fact that with the great increase of its population, there has been very little in- crease of its park or playground acreage. In 1890 Bridgeport had a population of about 40,000, and 240 acres of parks,—one acre of park to every 200 of population; in 1910, with a population of say, 100,000, and only 260 acres of parks, it had but one acre of park for every 385 of population. Today, with a population of perhaps 150,000, it has only one acre of park to every 580 of population. In the meantime, many other cities of the size and character of Bridgeport have moved ahead rapidly in acquiring park and playground lands. Two diagrams are submitted to illustrate the movement for parks in Bridgeport, one showing the existing park areas, and the other the proposed park system. The existing parks in Bridgeport comprise 259.18 acres, or one acre to every 580 of the population, assuming that population to be approximately 150,000. The proposed additions comprise 1,405 acres, making a total of 1,664.18 acres. This figure includes about 600 acres held by the Water Company. 100 PROPOSED PARK, PARKWAY, PLAYGROUNDS AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS. The most complete presentation of the park, parkway, play- ground, and other proposed improvements within the present city limits is given on the General City Plan. They are as follows: — 1. Horse Tavern Reservation. 25. Pequonnock Park. 2. Island Brook Forest. 26. Lafayette Playground Ext. 3. Vincellette Reservation. 27. Education Group. 4. Beardsley Park Extension. 28. Station Park. 5. Bunnell Parkway. 29. East Side Playground. 6. Reservoir Park. 30. Mill Pond Park. 7. Chopsy Hill Park. 31. Johnson Creek Parkway. 8. Savoy Parkway. 32. Newfield Playground. 9. Seeley Park. 33. Seaview Park. 10. Island Brook Playground. 34. Pembroke Playground. 11. Berkshire Park. 35. City Hall Park. 12. Huntington Park. 36. Civic Group. 13. Stillman Park. 37. Moody Park. 14. New School Playgrounds. 38. Ash Creek Parkway. 15. Hollister Playground. 39. Black Rock Boulevard. 16. Hollister Parkway. 40. Black Rock Playground. 17. Holly Park. 41. Burr Creek Playground. 18. East Side Park. 42. Burr Creek Park. 19. Crescent Park. 43. Cedar Creek Playground. 20. Riverside Park. 44. Seaside Playground. 21. Housatonic Playground. 45. Fayerweather Island Park. 22. Lexington Parkway. 46. Harbor Entrance Park. 23. Parrott Pond Playground. 47. Pleasure Beach Reservation. 24. Brooklawn Parkway. The more definite recognition of the importance of school play- grounds, the increase in their size, and the raising of their standard of equipment and of use have been given special consideration by the City Plan Commission, working in conjunction with the local Board of Education. The result of this consideration of the matter was the presentation of the following recommendation, namely, that Bridge- port should set a minimum of 40 square feet of play space per pupil for the schools in the congested districts, and raise this standard wherever circumstances permit. In the outlying districts the standard should be a school site of from 3 to 4 acres, with an occasional school of the Gary, Ind. standard of 10 acres, with an adjoining 10 acre park. The higher standard for Bridgeport should be sought because of the Connecticut law which restricts a school building to two stories, thus increasing its ground area and correspondingly decreasing the play space. *The numbers correspond with the numbers on the folded plan inserted in this Report. 101 SCHOOL PLAYGROUND STANDARDS. This recommendation is based upon the following standards, which have already been applied or are about to be applied in other places: —* Country school 2 acres Country school, if grounds are used by older . people Saturdays and evenings 3 Country athletic field, used also for picnic place 10 ~ City High School, with special provision for girls 1 er ae Waterfront Development at Stratford, Ontario, Canada. Bridgeport has many opportunities for similar improvements City Elementary schools, at least 40 sq. ft. per pupil. England requires 30 sq. ft. per child, which is equivalent to one child every 5 ft. Washington State voted 100 sq. ft. per child, but bill vetoed by Governor. Middle West and South have general practice of using one block per school. 1See “The Reorganized School Playground,” by Henry S. Curtis, Revised Edition. United States Bureau of Education. 1913. Bulletin No. 40. Whole Number 550. 102 Little Rock, Ark., every white school has at least a full block. Pueblo, Colo., all but one or two schools have a full block. Dallas, Tex., has sixteen school grounds of more than | acre. Houston, Tex., last five grounds secured contain 3 to 8 acres each. San Angelo, Tex., every school but one has at least two blocks, and two have 10 acres of play space. Gary, Ind., first school built had 2 acres, second 4 acres, third 11 acres, and recently a lot purchased for school site contained 20 acres, which is now considered the standard. Dr. Charles P. Steinmetz, Chairman of the Schenectady School Board, recommended the following minimum in his report dated Nov. 9th, 1912:—"Every school should have as a minimum 60 feet or more, figuring on a standard sixteen room school as containing 600 pupils.” The school plan as outlined for Sacramento by the School Board contemplates obtaining sites of a full block (320 ft. x 340 ft.) in the old city, and of two blocks in the annexed territory, and the location thereupon of schools of fire proof type which may be harmoniously added to as occasion demands, until each will accommodate 1,000 pupils, none of whom will have to walk more than about one-half mile. It is recommended for Bridgeport that the minimum requirement be one block for each school, but more would be better. In cities where blocks are less than 2 acres, play is apt to be greatly handicapped at home because in such blocks back yards are usually small. A good city block averages from 3 to 4 acres. Probably a 10 or 12 room school is about as large as can well be accommodated on the average city block. The chapter on the Down Town District includes more definite references and descriptions of the proposed Civic Group, which is shown at the general intersection of Fairfield Avenue, State Street and Park Avenue, and the Education Group on Golden Hill, which centers on the newly constructed High School. These changes would not only provide convenient and attractive sites for needed public buildings, but would also give an opportunity for small but agreeable open spaces in the heart of the city, which Bridgeport now lacks. In addition to the park properties proposed for Bridgeport within the city limits, there are some areas outside the present city boundaries which are recommended for present or future consideration, notably the large Mill River Forest Reservation of wild land comprising more than 1,500 acres to the west of Bridgeport in the town of Fairfield. This land is now of low value. If acquired it would have important future recreation advantages, and in the long run of the years to come, prove a profitable city investment. The best examples of municipal forests are to be found in Germany,’ although interest in them is "See ‘Town ‘Forests--A ‘European Idea by Which America Might Profit.” H. A. Reynolds. The American City, October, 1914. 103 spreading rapidly in this country, and American cities will soon have something in this direction to their credit. Some illustrations of the size of German city forests and their annual net profits are given below: — Area in Annual Net Acres Profit Per Acre Baden-Baden 12,849 $ 5.25 Forbach 1,482 12.14 Frankfort 11,224 4.93 Heidelberg 890 1.70 Pforzheim 2,640 9.60 Zurich 4,448 7.20 In the case of Forbach, a small town in the Black Forest, it will be noticed that the net profits per acre per year amounted to $12.14. This sum in the aggregate is sufficient to provide for all local taxes, and in addition, pay arauities to certain families out of the profits of the forest. The general plan for proposed development submitted with the Preliminary Report includes not only Bridgeport, but also parts of Stratford, Fairfield and Trumbull, and shows approximate boundaries for a wider outlying park system which should include not only the Mill River Forest mentioned above, but also the broad bands of natural parkway connections in both Fairfield and Stratford which have been indicated. The method of payment for park lands is a matter of importance. They may be met from annual taxation, by bond issues, by special assessment, or by the application of the principle of excess condemna- tion. Asa rule, except in the case of very small areas, it is better not to pay for park lands from annual taxation. Parks are purchased largely for the benefit of future generations, and unless largely for the benefit of future generations, and unless they come under the special assess- ment plan, it seems more equitable and better financial policy to pro- vide the necessary money by the issue of long time park bonds. If there is objection for one reason or another to recourse to bond issues, the scheme of benefit assessments should be considered. This is simply a plan by which the city secures a portion of the so-called un- earned or collectively earned increment created by a park, and uses it to pay for the park in question. It accomplishes much the same result as excess condemnation, but without the necessity for a large initial investment of public funds. Denver, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, and especially Kansas City, Mo. have followed this method. Kansas City’s achievement is notable. Beginning with less than one-tenth of an acre, the Park Board has built up a splendid system of parks and boulevards which has grown to 2,500 acres of parks, and 50 miles of carefully improved boulevards and parkways. This has been done virtually 104 Dublin Custom House. An Example of public building site on waterfront without increasing the public debt, although thirteen million dollars have been expended in the work. Bridgeport’s expenditures per capita for recreation are small. Compared with other cities of the same class for the last year for which official figures are available, it would be found that Bridgeport spent only 36 cents per capita for recreation, as against— Albany, N. Y. $0.92 Springfield, Mass. 78 Cambridge, Mass. 76 Hartford, Conn. 65 New Bedford, Mass. 56 New Haven, Conn. OZ Kansas City, Kansas 4] Grand Rapids, Mich. 38 Bridgeport could well afford to issue bonds for the acquisition of park lands and the permanent construction of the parks, and to increase its annual appropriation for the maintenance of parks. If parks are to be made effective for service, other factors of the city plan must also be considered. The public works of a city are de- pendent directly one upon another. For instance, it is nearly always desirable to reserve for park purposes the banks of the brooks, small rivers, and other non-navigable streams, and to safeguard these 105 Dublin. An example of riverfront development in Ireland natural channels from encroachment. This should not be done pri- marily because they usually afford one of the best opportunities for parks and parkways, but because they enable the community to thus provide adequate channels for storm water drainage. These are es- sential for safety. Without such reservations, exceptional storms and floods are almost certain to cause disasters leading to great loss of life and property, as the history of American cities sadly illustrates. An- other example of inter-relation of one physical feature to another is the way in which the surroundings of parks influence the character and usefulness of the parks themselves. Through selfishness or ignorance and neglect the values of a city’s investment in parks may be con- siderably reduced. Unsightly poles and overhead wires, smoke, bill- boards,’. and other nuisances of this sort destroy many of the very values that parks are intended to create, and should not therefore be permitted. Even the character of private buildings abutting on park property should be reasonably regulated. This would be made possible by the proposed zone or building district system which has been fully outlined in Chapter V of this report. *Regulation of billboards will be affected by building restrictions. 106 Yoda sj ul ajou pue znd aAoge 94} Buysesul ul oanseayd soyze} UOISSIUIUIOD Ue]g AyD 24, ‘sIeMOY Aprey pouoryse}-plo Jo uapzes yeu0} e aq [IM a19Y4} BaSeyOo OY} YIM peyouUOD *Hodaspug jo uUsIpP[IyS ay} IO} UNsnuL AJO}sIYy [eInyeu & Jo yey} st ssodind Azeuitid sj] ‘syuourormbei pue uoljzedo] s}I jINs 0} poyipoul ‘UOAY-UO-p10}}e1}G qeou ‘Alayoyg ye Aemeyjyeyy auuy jo asnoy ay} [esouas ul saquiaser peuuryd se a8e}09 ayy, ‘Wodespug jo ejdoed ay} 0} jes} ye ay} eAeS OYM ‘ko[spreag saurer 0} Jetuourjsa} e pue [euoUls,] URaIRadsayeYS e se A}ID BY} 0} 2823309 Yyssuq enbseinjoid e juesaid 0} sasodoid enseey] py yodespug ey], LaOddodad “WUVd ATISCUVAG “ADVLLOD AVMVHLVH ANNV 107 Sketch of Museum Building in Education Group proposed for Bridgeport 108 Vil CONCLUSION. City planners are compelled by the limitations of their own train- ing and experience to confine their efforts chiefly or wholly to studies of physical conditions and to recommendations for improving them. Yet the work of city planning is in no sense complete unless it includes also definite recommendations for putting the plans into action, whether by existing ordinances and statutes, or by proposed ordi- nances, statutes, or even constitutional amendments. This is the third stage of the city planning movement. The first was confined mainly to propaganda and was a necessary foundation; the second consisted largely of the preparation of general city plans and reports; the third includes these earlier stages, but has added the consideration of the legislation necessary for the execution of the plans. This report has already referred to an important advance which has been made in Bridgeport in the engagement by the local City Plan Commission, on my recommendation, of Frank Backus Williams, Esq., a distinguished member of the New York bar, and a specialist in social legislation, particularly in that part of it which has to do with the planning or replanning of cities. Mr. Williams’ recommendations are submitted in full with this report, and cover all the legal steps neces- sary for the carrying out of the physicial or social measures recom- mended in my report. The most important features for him to cover are named below, many of which apply also to areas in adjoining towns beyond the present boundaries of the city of Bridgeport: Location of new streets. Extension of existing streets. Widening of existing streets. Treatment of street intersections. Provision for traffic. ‘ Regulation of traction lines. Selection of public building sites. Control of the heights of buildings. The establishment of building districts. Restrictions for residential neighborhoods. The acquisition of park lands. The increase of bond issues. The wider application of the principle of special assessment. . The use of excess condemnation. The establishment of the city plan. Mr. Williams’ report, referred to above, is entitled “Legal Methods of Carrying Out the Changes Proposed in the City Plan for Bridgeport.’’ It embraces the following topics :— 109 I. The City Planning Agency. II. Special City Planning Powers. 1. The Adoption of a City Plan. 2. Excess Condemnation. 3. Building Regulation and Districting. III. Financing City Planning. 1. Local Assessments. 2. The Debt Limit. (a) Its size. (b) Borrowing on Local Assessments. (c) Self-supporting Improvements. IV. Greater Bridgeport. In conclusion, attention is invited again to the earlier special letters and reports to the City Plan Commission, which constitute a part of these recommendations. These are as follows:— Letter of May 29, 1914, on the importance of establishing build- ing lines, which was followed on June 1, 1914, by a communication of the City Plan Commission to the Common Council. Opinion on the location of the proposed new bridge, July 29, 1914, in which Mr. Frederick Law Olmsted concurred. Report on the Fairfield Avenue Bridge problem, August 7, 1914, by Frederick Law Olmsted. Data and Report bearing upon the proposed Fairfield Avenue Bridge, September 28, 1914. Some First City Planning Impressions of Bridgeport, October 20, 1914. Preliminary Report to the City Plan Commission, October 29, 1914, which was printed by the Commission in January, 1915. In all, 117 plans have been prepared or collected on the Bridge- port local survey city or planning work. The full list is given with the final Report. Only a selection of these can be reproduced in the Report. In some cases there are several plans bearing on the same subject, one taking the place of the other. This has been done in part to meet the necessity of modification of recommendations, because of the changes which have occurred in Bridgeport during the last two years through increase of population and its results. Finally, the general statement made in my Preliminary Report should perhaps be repeated here. American cities must rely for results in city planning mainly upon good plans and the promotion of sound public opinion. The making of public opinion for city planning is like the making of public opinion for anything else. It comes by agitation, discussion by and in the newspapers, by public meetings, by the publication and circulation of reports, and by exhibitions. All phases of city planning need to be 110 » discussed,—the merits and difficulties of various recommendations, the legal methods to be employed, and the financial cost. If results are to be obtained in city planning, it is also necessary for the City Plan Commission to have in its employ some one who gives his main at- tention to city planning. It is not merely a matter of getting from some one a report, with plans and recommendations. The process is an endless one. If a city is alive and growing, the city planning never gets done. Therefore, it is necessary to have a qualified official or assistant who is free to follow it up constantly. Appreciative acknowledgment is due to the Mayor, the City Engineer, the Auditor, the members of the Board of Education and the Board of Assessors, the Park Commission, and especially to each mem- ber of the City Plan Commission, for hearty cooperation in the prepar- ation of the final plans and the accompanying report. Respectfully submitted, JOHN NOLEN, Cambridge, Mass. Consultant on City Planning. May |, 1916. 111 LIMITS IN REPLANNING CITIES. One of the great difficulties as regards organization in practical life is, that the ground is hardly ever clear; and that pedants, and men who are dominated by mere neatness and completeness of planning, will not recognize this fact. Some metaphysicians have compared the mind of a child to a piece of blank paper upon which anything might be inscribed. But this is a very in- adequate similitude. A better one, perhaps, would have been found in com- paring the mind of a child to a land yet uncultivated, and of which the culti- vation must vary according to the nature of the land. But, however, this may be, there are very few things with which organization has to deal, which can be compared in blankness to a sheet of white paper; and so organization is, for the most part, a patching, mending, correcting, or adapting. A new colony affords something which at first appears clear ground. But it is not so. There is the peculiar nature of the territory, of the adjacent neighbours, and of the colonists themselves, with all their Old-world ways, habits, and preju- dices. In short, in real life you rarely have to organize from the beginning, but, rather, to take up organization at a certain point of its progress. Extract from ‘Organization in Daily Life’, By Arthur Helps, published in 1848. 112 APPENDIX (Reprinted from Preliminary Report) COMMUNICATION OF CITY PLAN COMMISSION TO THE COMMON COUNCIL ON BUILDING LINES. Bridgeport, Conn., June 1, 1914. To the Mayor and Common Council of the City of Bridgeport, Gentlemen :— fh The City Plan Commission, pursuant to your directions, is actively en- gaged in collecting and preparing the necessary information and data for its report, and has employed as its principal adviser, John Nolen, Esq., of Cam- bridge, Mass., with Frederick Law Olmsted, Esq., of Brookline, Mass., as consultant. Both of these men are of the highest standing in their profession. At the last meeting of the Commission, after receiving and discussing the reports of Mr. Nolen on the conditions in Bridgeport which appeared to him to be of immediate importance, the following vote was passed unanimously: Whereas, the narrowness of many of the principal streets of the city and the resulting congestion of traffic constitute one of the chief problems of Bridgeport and threaten to become an obstacle to its pros- perity and growth, and Whereas, the situation on many streets that are destined to become important thoroughfares in the near future is fortunately such that a suit- able width can be had if existing building lines are maintained and en- forced and new lines established wherever needed, and Whereas, on many occasions in the past, the insistence of individual property owners upon the discontinuance of such lines has been allowed to prevail to the permanent injury of the community and in the long run to the loss of the individual owners themselves, now therefore, Resolved, that this Commission recommend to the Mayor and Com- mon Council, as one of the plain duties of the City in providing for its future, that no existing building line on any highway which is now or which is likely to become an important thoroughfare be discontinued in whole or in part, or allowed to be violated by any person, and that no such lines on any other streets, even though they may be at present resi- dential or open, be narrowed or discontinued except for grave reasons and upon the fullest consideration, and Resolved, that the written report of Mr. John Nolen on this sub- ject, and a copy of these resolutions be transmitted by the Secretary of the Commission to the Mayor and Common Council of the City. Respectfully submitted, A. M. MARSH, Secretary. 113 REPORT OF COMMISSION DE BOSTON AVENUE EXTENSION TO NORTH MAIN STREET. Bridgeport, Conn., December 29, 1915. To the Mayor and Common Council of the City of Bridgeport, Gentlemen :— During the last six months the work of the City Plan Commission has been devoted mostly to the territory in the northern sections of the city, where the rapid development, both in manufacturing and housing, has required immediate attention. It is very clear that unless Bridgeport meets the present conditions with an intelligent, liberal and far-sighted policy, the last state of the city will be worse than the first, and if we do not make ample provision on that basis for the future at this time, we shall only repeat on a larger scale the mistakes of the past in other parts of the city, which are now beyond cor- rection. In co-operation with the proper Boards, Committees and property owners on the problems of highways, parks and school houses and school locations, good progress has been made, in regard to which, as often as is feasible, this Commission will report to you. The purpose of the present communication is to make report and rec- ommendation concerning the improvement of Boston Avenue from its junction with Barnum Avenue in the Town of Stratford to North Avenue, and its exten- sion to North Main Street. For several years it has been more or less clearly recognized that conditions in the neighborhood of the Reservoir Avenue crossing of the Berkshire Division tracks of the Railroad Company form a serious barrier to travel between the northwestern and northeastern parts of - the city. Meanwhile all the territory upon and near North Main Street has grown and developed very fast in the last three years, and at present, with the large increase in population and building now going on north and east of Old Mill Green, the need of direct communication has become very urgent. The numerous residents of the North Main Street section cannot reach the eastern part of the city without a long and inconvenient journey into town and out again. For the same reason, people in East Bridgeport wishing to reach St. Vincent's Hospital or that neighborhood, are obliged to take the same round- about way. We believe that for the present and future needs of the greater Bridge- port an ample east and west thoroughfare across the northern part of the city should be immediately provided. Fortunately Boston Avenue, from the Strat- ford line to the new Glenwood Avenue Bridge, is not less than seventy feet wide at all points. We believe that it should be improved so as to be usable to its full width and extended seventy feet wide from the Glenwood Avenue bridge to North Main Street, passing under the tracks of the Berkshire Division and eliminating the dangerous grade crossing at Reservoir Avenue and the grade crossing at Carson Street, and reaching North Main Street one block 114 north of St. Vincent's Hospital by way of Fairview Avenue, which would be widened to seventy feet. Mr. John Nolen, in his preliminary report issued last Spring, suggested such a highway. This suggestion the Commission has worked out in detail with the principal property owners and the Railroad Company and recommends the plan to your favorable consideration for the following reasons: 1. There is no direct east and west thoroughfare between these sec- tions of the city nor within a long distance south of the proposed highway. 2. There is a large amount of land adjacent to the proposed highway and to the north of it which would be opened up and become available for a pleasant and healthy residence district. 3. It would eliminate the highly dangerous grade crossing at Reservoir Avenue and another grade crossing at Carson Street. 4. By the proper development of the trolley system, it would form part of a belt line or outer circuit, which ought to run with double track from the junction of Boston Avenue with Barnum Avenue in Stratford over Old Mill Hill and along the Green, and thence through Boston Avenue and the pro- posed extension to the neighborhood of St. Vincent’s Hospital, and eventually across Main Street, Madison Avenue and Park Avenue to Brooklawn Avenue. 5. This further extension west of Main Street is feasible and probably before many years will be demanded. 6. A great amount of traffic between these sections, which now adds to the congestion in the center of the city, and which will constantly increase in volume, will be enabled to go quickly and without inconvenience over the new thoroughfare. Included in this consideration is the increased availability of the North Main Street district for the great number of families who will be connected with the Remington Arms and Cartridge Company plants and other manufactories in the eastern part of the city. The trip between these points, which now means thirty or forty minutes, should be reduced with proper trolley service on the new street to ten or twelve minutes, We present with this report a map showing the proposed layout under the Berkshire tracks and thence by two alternative routes to Main Street, one of them connecting with Fairview Avenue, and the other more to the north connecting at Summit Street. The total expense has been carefully worked out and would amount, by the Fairview Avenue route, not to exceed $55,000, allowing for contribution by the Railroad Company on grade crossing work, and for proceeds of sale of surplus material from grading. This cost includes land damages and grading ready to use. The principal land owners affected, who are the Chamberlain family and the owners of the Park Cemetery, have agreed to give the land to Fairview Avenue without charge, and some other owners will probably follow suit. The grade crossing elimination has been discussed with the Railroad Company and assurance is given that it will pay one-half of the expense to carry the street under the tracks, which would mean payment of about $15,000 on condition that the crossings at Reservoir Avenue and Carson Street are closed. 115 The construction cost of the northerly route would be somewhat less, but that route does not appeal to the property owners sufficiently to enable us to gain their consent to dedicate the land to the city, and a contest on this ques- tion might jeopardize the whole enterprise. The construction of the street on either route could be done without making a grade at any point over 6%. This is about the same as Congress Street from Housatonic Avenue to Main Street. In short, the City Plan Commission, after a very thorough investigation and preparation of plans, strongly endorse the extension of Boston Avenue to Main Street at the present time as one of the most important constructive pieces of work for the future of Bridgeport that can be mentioned. In the same connection the Commission suggests that Boston Avenue be improved, to its full legal width, and for its entire length from the Stratford line to North Ave- nue, by straightening and providing suitable surfacing or paving and curb, gutter and sidewalk. The town authorities of Stratford have under considera- tion the subject of improving Boston Avenue from Bruce's Brook to Barnum Avenue. The Commission recommends for adaption the following resolution namely: Resolved, That the foregoing report be accepted and that the same be and hereby is referred to the Streets and Sidewalks Committee, with a request to report its recommendations as soon as possible. Respectfully submitted at Bridgeport, Conn., this 29th day of December, 1915, by direction of the City Plan Commission. CHARLES D. DAVIS, Chairman, ARTHUR M. MARSH, Secretary. REPORT OF COMMISSION TO COUNCIL DE RELIEF OF MAIN STREET TRAFFIC CONGESTION. Bridgeport, Conn., May 1, 1916. To the Honorable Mayor and Common Council of the City of Bridgeport. Gentlemen :— The resolution of your Honorable Board dated April 17, 1916, request- ing the recommendations of the City Plan Commission in view of the bond issue for street extensions, has been received. In response, we beg to report that this general subject has been one of the principal subjects examined by this Commission and that Mr. John Nolen has reported fully his advice from time to time. 116 It is plain, however, that no plans of this magnitude should be entered upon without careful estimates of cost. These are being prepared by compe- tent men who will render report before the hearings of May 15th. Obviously, the pressing and immediate problem in traffic is the relief of Main Street between State and Congress Streets. The present congestion on this street, with consequent loss of valuable time and danger to life and limb, is intolerable and has reached the point where it actually menaces property values and Main Street business, because under existing conditions, both vehicles and foot traffic will avoid it whenever possible. When a street car consumes twenty minutes in going from State Street to Congress, as recently happened, and lines of vehicles two or three blocks in length are frequently held up, the daily loss to hundreds of people is beyond calculation. To correct this condition and apply the remedy with good judgment, the causes should be analyzed and frankly faced. To us they appear to be mainly three in number: FIRST. THE SLOW AND HEAVY TRUCKS. Many trucks are compelled to use Main Street on account of the abomin- able pavement of Water Street and Housatonic Avenue. This obstruction to travel could be removed without very much expense. Let Water Street and Housatonic Avenue have the benefit of some of the pavement bond issue, at least between Wall and Congress Streets, and if possible as far as East Wash- ington Avenue, and let Water Street and Housatonic Avenue be widened between Wall and Congress Streets. The trucks and many automobiles would then leave Main Street, and the trucks could be excluded, if necessary, by ordinance. SECOND CAUSE. THE MULTIPLICATION OF JITNEYS. These cars appear in this section of Main Street in numbers that are out of all proportion to their usefulness to that section; they frequently make sudden stops in unexpected places, and they are in many ways so badly driven as to be highly dangerous. In short, under existing conditions, their room is better than their company, and for the greatest good of the greatest number they should be excluded from Main Street between State and Elm Streets. THIRD CAUSE. TROLLEY CARS. In a street as narrow as Main Street, with many vehicles standing along the curb and with too frequent stops for passengers, all other traffic many times a day has to crawl along behind a street car at a snail's pace for many blocks. Trolleys should not be allowed to take up and discharge passengers at points so close together. It is wholly unnecessary to have a dozen stopping points between State and Congress Streets, a distance of only 2,000 feet. But regulation on that point does not go to the root of the difficulty. Since it is not practicable to widen the street, part of the trolley traffic should go by some other route. It has been suggested that State Street to Water Street, and Water Street north of State, be widened for a new route. 117 This plan we do not recommend. It is doubtful whether traffic would follow it sufficiently to give relief, and it would hardly be fair to throw a large amount of trolleys and light traffic upon that part of Water Street making up the established wholesale district. The new diagonal street from State and Main Streets to Water Street at present under discussion has much in its favor. All the automobile traffic moving between State Street and East Bridgeport would find it a great advantage. Part of the trolley lines should take this route and cross the river either by the new bridge or by the Congress Street bridge. With Water Street widened to Congress Street as above men- tioned, instead of remaining choked by its narrowness at the Coulter & Mc- Kenzie corner, (width between buildings feet) and almost useless from pavement conditions, the Barnum Avenue line, for example, could readily use it, relieve Main Street, and carry its passengers directly to the station. Unless the expense of the proposed diagonal street is prohibitive, we believe it should be established. Estimates will be at your service at the hearings two weeks hence. The damages will be high but property for a reasonable distance on State and Main Streets near the corner will be assessable for benefits that would materially reduce the net cost, and we are informed that several owners of such property have already perceived the justice of assessments and have ex- pressed willingness to pay them. If this plan is to be adopted at all, however, it should be done on a sufficient scale to justify the heavy expense. The street, in our judgment, should be 80 feet wide. The damages will not be propor- tionately heavier and when it is done, the City will have a street adequate for many years. If laid out only 60 feet wide, there will be remorse within five years. It will be only another instance of an apparent economy carried too far, of which we have already a sufficient number of examples, but regret will then be too late. We recommend that the hearing should be called for this street either 80 foot wide or without specific limitations. In conjunction with this improvement, Water Street, from Wall to the bridge, should be widened to 100 feet. The success in bridge approaches is to divide the traffic expeditiously. Water Street, between Fairfield Avenue and Wall Street where the traffic would separate into Wall, lower Water Street and the new street, has now, and always will have a great volume of business to carry. It should be made ample for these purposes. Then if we could give Water Street north of Fairfield Avenue a good pavement and carry out the comparatively inexpensive widening to 75 feet as far as Congress Street, a great relief of Main Street would undoubtedly follow. We believe that, at all events, the May 15th hearings should include for dis- cussion the subject of such widening. On Main Street north of Congress, the same conditions of congestion are rapidly developing. We believe, therefore, that at some time not far distant and before more large buildings are erected, Housatonic Avenue should be widened at least to the extent permitted by the eight foot building line on the west side. This would greatly improve the only north and south street avail- able to help out Main Street, and to get additional street space on the east side we submit that it would be feasible to arrange with the Railroad Com- 118 pany to support the Housatonic tracks by an open construction instead of a solid fill, thus making the land underneath practically part of the street. The proposed John Street extensions would not, in our judgment, assist materially in the relief of Main Street, which is the imperative necessity at present. We recommend postponement of those expensive measures until the effect of other changes appears. Lastly, unless it is unavoidable, it seems hardly fair to the taxpayers to spend all of these funds in the center of the City. Other sections, rapidly growing, where street improvements of great future value can now be made cheaply, are entitled to consideration,—for example, the Boston Avenue ex- tension to North Main Street. We believe that this improvement ought to have the first claim to attention after the Main Street relief. Our specific recommendations, therefore, at this time are that the fol- lowing resolutions be adopted, viz.: Resolved, That the Clerk be and hereby is, directed to notify the parties in interest to appear before this Common Council at the Council Room, City Hall, on the 15th day of May, A. D. 1916, at eight o’clock in the evening and be heard in relation to the layout of a new highway 80 feet wide from the southwest corner of Wall and Water streets to a point at or near the northeast corner of State and Main streets. Resolved, That the Clerk be and hereby is, directed to notify the parties in interest to appear before this Common Council at the Council Room, City Hall, on the 15th day of May, A. D. 1916, at eight o'clock in the evening and be heard in relation to the widening of Water Street and Housatonic Avenue from Fairfield Avenue to Congress Street to a width of 75 feet. Resolved, That the Clerk be and hereby is, directed to notify the parties in interest to appear before this Common Council at the Council Room, City Hall, on the 15th day of May, A. D. 1916, at eight o’clock in the evening and be heard in relation to the widening of Water Street from Fairfield Avenue to Wall Street to a width of 100 feet. Respectfully submitted, THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION. Attest: ARTHUR M. MARSH, Secretary. Note. It was also verbally reported to the Council at its hearing on this subject that the estimates of expense reported to the Commission by Messrs. Wilbur A. Smith and Wilmot F. Wheeler, were as follows: Widening of Water Street from Wall Street to Fairfield Avenue on the east side, to a width of 100 feet: Damages about $114,000. Benefits assessed against property on the west side of the street, $11.500; Net, $112,500; 119 , Widening Water Street from Golden Hill Street to Congress, to a width of 75 feet, by taking the additional width on the east side as far as Gold Street, and on the west side between Gold Street and Congress Street; Damages, $70,500, Benefits, 36,000, Net, 34,500. The benefits are reckoned against property on the west side and includ- ing a benefit of $11,000 assessed against the property between Fairfield Ave- nue and Golden Hill Street. This assessment does not take into account the fact of using the City fire house property in part for this widening. They reported further that the diagonal street 80 feet wide from Wall Street to the corner of State and Main Streets was very difficult to estimate, not only because the pieces of abutting property left would be in irregular shapes, but because it was uncertain how far property on State Street and Main Street could be assessed for benefits; assessing such benefits as far as Gilbert Street and as far as Park Avenue, the net cost would be probably be- tween $200,000 and $300,000. 120 LEGAL METHODS OF CARRYING OUT THE CHANGES PROPOSED IN THE CITY PLAN FOR BRIDGEPORT BY FRANK BACKUS WILLIAMS INTRODUCTION Bridgeport is at a critical point in her history. She has just experienced a great and sudden increase in population, with all the demands which such an increase makes upon her of immediate additional municipal facilities; and faces an immediate increase of perhaps equal size and suddenness. In no small measure the future of Bridgeport and the prosperity and well-being of its industries and people, depend upon the manner in which these demands are met. Shall evil conditions, to be found in certain districts like ‘‘Hell’s kitchen’’, be allowed to spread; shall districts now fully occupied be danger- ously overcrowded; shall industries, now expanding, in places, with difficulty, be still further fettered in their growth; shall confusion in the location of residences, business and industry, to some extent existent, be augumented and made permanent;—or in order to avoid these evils, shall adequate provision be now made for future growth along lines wisely planned? From Bridgeport's increase, so recent as to be as yet unprovided for, and the further increase that is imminent, will come the one or the other of these results. Fortunately, the addition to Bridgeport’s industry and wealth is quite in proportion to her increase in population—the resources for providing addition- al facilities are at hand and only need to be seasonably and wisely utilized. In order better to meet the exigency, Bridgeport has caused a survey of her situation to be made. The reports of Mr. Nolen and myself, now submitted, state the results of that survey, with recommendations, based on it, for the im- provement of that situation. Mr. Nolen’s report is occupied with the physical aspects of the subject, while mine is concerned with its no less important legal aspect. In a democracy like ours, no public enterprise can be accomplished except by methods sanctioned by law. A failure to know and appreciate this fact is one of the common causes of the failure of city planning effort in this country to produce practical results. Many a city plan remains merely a plan because of failure to make the legal methods of carrying it out an integral part of it. It is the legal part of the recommendations that is now to be con- sidered. This report will first take up the legal problems with regard to the plan- ning of that part of Bridgeport and its environs which is at present within the legal limits of the city. In so doing it will deal first with the question of the city planning agency or executive for the city, its membership and powers; secondly with various legal powers which the city needs in its planning, as 123 10 follows:—the adoption of a city plan; excess condemnation; building regula- tion and districting; thirdly with the financing of Bridgeport’s city planning; lastly with the planning of greater Bridgeport, so intimately connected with the problems involved in the planning of the present city. The legal proposals of this report are all urged as more or less specific aids in carrying out the suggestions contained in Mr. Nolen’s report for the im- provement of the physical situation in Bridgeport. But this is not their sule purpose. It is hoped that the measures advocated in this report are also those legal measures of which in her planning Bridgeport is most in permanent need. 124 I. THE CITY PLANNING AGENCY. The city planning agency in Bridgeport under its present charter is a city planning commission. It is a citizen commission, appointed by the Mayor. Jt is authorized by resolution of the Common Council.! Its powers are purely advisory. If there were no prospect of a change in the charter of the city, there might be no occasion for suggesting any change in this planning agency and its authority; or if suggestions were made, it would be without unduly insisting upon the need of their immediate adoption. In all probability, however, Bridgeport is soon to have a new charter. It is now being drafted for submission to the voters of the city under a law entitled ‘‘An act concerning Home Rule for Cities and other Municipalities.” It is therefore necessary to consider at once what city planning provision the new charter in this and other respects, should contain. The act in question states* that the charter for the city which is to be prepared under it: “may contain provisions for the organization of the government and the distribution of the powers thereof; for the election, appointment or designation of its officers; for defining and limiting their duties and terms, and fixing their salaries. .. .for levying, assessing, and collect- ing taxes; for the borrowing of money; for the issuing of bonds; for the establishment and management of sinking funds and other special funds. ... and for the exercise of such powers and the performance of such services as may be necessary and convenient for its welfare.” The commissioners who are drafting the new charter would naturally rely upon the official planning authority of the city to suggest what planning powers should be granted to the city, and it would seem to be the duty of the city planning commission to make such suggestions. From the portion of the law just quoted it is plain that the future charter may provide for an agency to take charge of the planning of the city. What provisions on that subject should it contain? Under the new charter the planning agency for the city, should be a city planning commission with advisory power.‘ It is true that the tendency in the newer charter legislation is, on the whole, against the creation of com- missions for the various departments of the city government and in favor of *Adopted August 18, 1913. 7P. A. 1915, ch. 317. "Section 9. ‘Such a commission has been appointed by Hartford (Special Acts, 1907 No. 61) and ' New Haven, ee 1913 No. 243). Authority to appoint such a commission has been conferred on West Hartford (ib. 1913, No. 291, and 1915, No. 113.) Such powers have been conferred on the Board of Park Commissioners of New London, (ib. 1913, No. 351 sec. 11-15). 125 centralizing both power and responsibility. But the city planning commission is an exception to this rule. The new model charter of the National Municipal League provides for a city planning commission.. The reasons for this excep- tion are two-fold; first the city planning commission is, almost universally, a purely advisory commission, and therefore its existence and powers do not prevent concentration of power and of the responsibility that go with power; and, secondly, the city planning commission is unique. Its task is to provide a unified plan for all the varied activities of the many different municipal agencies. It must therefore to a certain extent be apart from and over them all, and not an appendage of any one of them. It is a significant fact that the commission is the almost universal planning agency in this country. The commissioners who are drafting Bridgeport’s new charter have not as yet announced what the form of that charter will be. If it is like the present charter in form there are few who would question the wisdom of continuing to have a city planning commission as at present. If the charter is to be the so-called ‘‘commission’’ form, there is still no reason why city planning should not be administered by a city planning commission. It is true that in this form of municipal government all the power of final action and all the responsibility for that action are centered in the one commission; but the ex- istence of advisory commissions does not lessen this centralizing of power and responsibility.2, There are in fact, many cities under the “commission” form of government which have city planning commissions.° The present charter provides for a citizen commission. This should be the composition of the commission under the new charter. In governmental affairs as elsewhere the expert is most useful as adviser, not ruler. City of- ficials, if they are members of such a commission, should be in a minority. A commission of public officials would be not so much a planning commission as a board of public works—a useful but very different body. Outsiders are more apt to get a broad impartial point of view than those too closely con- cerned in any special phase of the subject. The city officials although not members of the planning commission would always have a right to com- mand its services, and to be heard by it; and the Commission would always have the privilege of calling upon them for service, information or advice. The planning commission, under the present charter, is appointed by the mayor. It should be so appointed under the new charter.‘ We are learning by bitter experience that if we are to have effective popular government, we **A Model City Charter and Municipal Home Rule.”’ Final Edition, Philadelphia, March 15, 1916, Sec. 73. *Thus the charter of Dayton, Ohio, a “commission” governed city, provides: “SECTION 54. The Commission may appoint a City Plan Board and upon the re- quest of the City Manager shall appoint advisory boards. The members of such boards shall serve without compensation and their duty shall be to consult and ad- vise with the various departments. The duties and powers thus created shall be prescribed by ordinance.” "The American Bureau, 87 Nassau St. New York City, writes under date of October 29, 1915, that of the four hundred or more cities with “commission” charters, seventeen are known to it to have city planning commissions. ‘Unless a “commission” form of government is adopted under which all appointments are made by the Commission itself. 126 must have a system of government which the great body of the people can and will understand. This means, among other things, few elective ofhicers, with power given to these few, for which they are held responsible. The short ballot principle is best attained by leaving the appointment of officials in whom the general public take little interest and whose duties they do not understand, to some official like the mayor. The short ballot principle, slowly making its way in our politics, has come to stay. If, then, the new charter provides for a city planning commission, what general powers should it receive? Almost universally in this country, such a commission has merely advisory powers. To give it more power divides power and responsibility both as to what is done and as to what is left undone, between the commission and the regular authorities, and makes it impossible to hold either accountable. A commission with advisory power is by no means powerless. With a good cause it can appeal to the public and compel the regular authorities to listen. The fact that to accomplish this, it must educate the public, or win its confidence, is no disadvantage to city planning, or good government; in a democracy success should be attained on no other terms; indeed, this is the only method of attaining lasting success. The power to advise should carry with it the right to full and prompt information from every city official or body, of any act materially affecting the city plan. The power to advise implies also the opportunity and time to investigate and submit a report to the city authority about to act before final action is taken. Perhaps also, the report of the city planning commission, with its special knowledge of the subject, should not be over-ruled by a mere majority of the legislative body of the city. In Ohio, by State Law, a two- thirds vote is required to accomplish this result. The above statement covers in a general way, the power of advice usually given a city planning commission. More specifically, that power may be di- vided into the power to give advice and the authority to require that the oppor- tunity be afforded to give such advice. The power to give advice may be, and should be, unlimited. It should cover a wide range of subjects, including many outside the range of immediate action by the city, and even some which are entirely beyond its control. A general plan of a city, which it is almost in- variably the duty of a planning commission to prepare as soon as possible, is one form of advice of just this sort. The right to require that an opportunity be given to offer advice is a dif- ferent matter. This power imposes an obligation upon the other city depart- ments, and therefore must be carefully limited and defined. Especial care must be taken that, in the effort to include under the jurisdiction of the city planning commission everything that may affect the city plan, the routine work of the city be not hampered. For instance, street paving relates to the laying out of streets, but has little to do with the city plan. In this connection *“An Act to Provide for a City Planning Commission in Municipalities,” passed in 1915, to be found in Laws, Vol. 105-106, p. 455. 127 the New York City planning law! may be helpful. It provides? that there shall be referred to the commission “‘by the board commission commissioner or other public officer or officers of said city or village which is the final authority thereon, before final action thereon by such authority: the adoption of any map or plan of said city or incorporated village, or part thereof, including drainage and sewer or water system plans or maps, and plans or maps for any public water front, or marginal street, or public structure upon, in or in connection with such front or street, or for any dredging, filling or fixing of lines with relation to said front; any change of any such maps or plans; the location of any public structure upon, in or in connection with or fixing lines with relation to said front; the location of any public building, bridge, statue or monument, highway, park, parkway, square, playground or recreation ground, or public open place of said city or village.” The New York Statute does not provide for the compulsory reference to the City Planning Commission of the location of systems of public utility, such as gas, water, transit, etc., whether publicly or privately owned or managed, nor of building regulation, whether by districts or otherwise. In all these matters the local officials should, and on some phases of them do, have au- thority; they all vitally affect the city plan; and in no case should the city officials be permitted to take final action until the City Planning Commission has had an opportunity to investigate and report on them.’ It was for reasons of expediency that many of the advocates of City Planning in New York did not attempt to give Planning Commissions these powers in that state.* Il. SPECIFIC CITY PLANNING POWERS. In addition to the power to appoint a city planning commission, what city planning powers should Bridgeport have, and how may such powers be procured ? 1. THE ADOPTION OF A CITY PLAN. In order that city construction may be intelligently carried on, it is necessary that there should be a plan of the city as a whole, by which the planning of any part or detail of it at any time may be guided. It is one of the most important duties of a city planning commission to prepare such a plan. The making of the plan, however, does not of itself in any way control city construction. It is for this reason that cities are beginning to insert in 4General Municipal Law, Article 12a, passed in 1913. Sec. 236. *The subject of building regulation by districts is considered on p. 133 and ff. below. Systems of public utility almost invariably must use the public streets and get permits or other permission from the local authorities before doing so. As to transit lines in Connecticut, see P. A. 1905, ch. 244; 1909, ch. 184; Gen. Stats. 1902, sec. 3823 and ff. ‘The writer was the draftsman of the New York statute, and is therefore referring to matters within his personal knowledge. 128 their charters a provision for the adoption, officially, of a city plan.t The effect of such action is to make it unlawful for any city official or employee to depart in city construction from the plan adopted. The official plan of Bridgeport should include the main features of the city which the public has the right and power to control, such as the street system, the parks, the water front and its development, etc. The General City Plan submitted with Mr. Nolen’s report,? is of this nature. Such a plan should not cover the entire city in detail; indeed it is better that the main outlines only should be so fixed, leaving the details, as Mr. Nolen has done, to be determined later. Thus, in so far as street planning is concerned, the main lines of communication for the entire city should be laid down as soon as possible, leaving the subsidiary streets to be filled in from time to time as need for them arises. It does not follow that a plan, because officially adopted, will not change. All things that are alive and grow, like a busy city, also change. Details, too, must be filled in, and the plan completed, if, even in outline, it is not complete. Wherever there are provisions for the official adoption of a city plan, there is also provision for its amendment. It is not desirable to give the city planning commission full power to adopt and amend the city plan or map. To do so would make that body the sole authority in all the main matters of city construction. Here as else- where the power of the city planning commission should be advisory. It should be the duty of the commission to prepare and submit a general city plan, and such amendments from time to time as it deems wise. No plan, or change in plan, should be allowed, until the commission has had an oppor- tunity to investigate the matter and give advice with regard to it. The power officially to adopt and change the map should be lodged with the Common Council or other regular city authority. The official plan or map binds all the city authorities; but unfortunately it does not in any way legally affect the owner of the land planned, or prevent him from developing his property as he sees fit; and it is established law that *The map or plan of New York City includes “parks, streets, bridges, tunnels, and approaches to bridges and tunnels’, and “the width and grades of all such streets so located and laid out.’”” (Charter 3d edition by Mark and William Ash, sec. 439, as amended by Laws 1913, ch. 329). There is a similar map of drainage and sewer systems (charter sec. 444, 445, (as amended by Laws 1911, ch. 675) 446. See generally charter ch. X, Title 4, and supplements to the charter, containing amend- ments of same. The map of Philadelphia includes “streets, lanes and alleys."” See generally, Purdon’s Digest of the Statute Law of Penn. 13th edition, Vol. III, p. 2942, ff; and supplement 1905-9, p. 6744. The Pennsylvania law for second class cities is much the same. ib. Vol. III, p. 3088, sec. 569. For the provisions on this subject in force in Baltimore, see sec. 84-86 of ‘““A Code of Public Local Laws of Maryland,” Article 4, title ‘City of Baltimore’, sub-title, “Charter.” The legal map of a City consists of many sheets, each showing one or more fea- tures of the plan for a section of the city. There would seem to be no good reason why the maps of the drainage and sewer systems should in law be distinct from the general city map, as seems to be the case in New York City. As already indicated the city map of Bridgeport may well be more inclusive than the New York law has as yet made that of New York City. Indeed it would seem that the official map should include nearly if not all those matters mentioned on page 127 and ff. above, which by law are to be referred to the planning commission before final action there- on by this city. "No. 15. 129 any attempt to control private interests by such a map is unconstitutional as a taking of rights in private property without compensation.?. There is no way as yet devised and tested, completely of avoiding this difficulty. It does not follow that the provisions for the official adoption of a city map are not useful. It is a great advantage to compel the city deliberately to choose a more or less comprehensive plan, which cannot be changed without delibera- tion, and until changed binds all city officials. Various ways of securing the adherence to some extent of private land owners to the official plan have been adopted in several states, and although they have by no means been thoroughly tested in the courts, they would seem to be legal. One such provision is that no plan of a new street and no deed refering to such street, shall be accepted for record unless (1) the street is laid out in conformity with the city plan or (2) the plan or deed has the ap- proval of the appropriate city officials. This would do much to prevent the laying out of streets by real estate developers, contrary to the city plan; for it is difficult to sell land if deeds conveying it cannot be recorded. In defence of the legality of such a statute it is said that record is not a right but a privilege that the state may confer or refuse on grounds of public policy.? To supplement this statute there should be a second providing that no private street should be accepted by the city that is not in accordance with the city map; and a third that the city shall not construct any public work for the use of any resident on any street not accepted by the city or approved by it, or extend to such a resident the use of any such facilities.® 1The cases are cited in Lewis “Eminent Domain” (3rd ed.) Sec. 226. "As, for instance, the failure to pay a tax. 13 Cyc. 597, Note 99, and cases cited; State v. Register of Deeds, 26 Minn. 521; Van Husan v. Heames, 96 Mich. 504; Welever v. Auditor Gen., 143 Mich. 311; Contra, State v. Moore, 7 Wash. 173. ®There are many statutes along these lines. The City Planning Law for third class cities in Pennsylvania, (No. 406 of 1913,) on this point is as follows: “Section 5. All plans, plots, or re-plots of lands laid out in building lots, and the streets, alleys, or other portions of the same intended to be dedicated to public use, or for the use of purchasers or owners of lots fronting thereon or adjacent thereto, and located within the city limits, or for a distance of three miles outside thereof, shall be submitted to the City Planning Commission and approved by it before it shall be recorded. And it shall be unlawful to receive or record such plan in any public office unless the same shall bear thereon, by endorsement or otherwise, the approval of the City Planning Commission. The disapproval of any such plan by the City Planning Commission shall be deemed a refusal of the proposed dedication shown thereon. The approval of the commission shall be deemed an acceptance of the proposed dedication; but shall not impose any duty upon the city concerning the maintenance or improvement of any such dedicated parts, until the proper authorities of the city shall have made actual appropriation of the same by entry, use, or improvement. No sewer, water, or gas-main, or pipes, or other improvement, shall be voted or made within the area under the jurisdiction of said commission, for the use of any such purchasers or owners; nor shall any permit for connection with or other use of any such improvement existing, or for any other reason made, be given to any such purchasers or owners until such plan is so approved. Where the jurisdictional limit of three miles outside of the city limits, as provided in this section may conflict with the zone of similar character connected with another city of the third class, the jurisdiction of said commission shall extend only to the point equi- distant between the city limits and the limits of said municipality. The New York Planning Law (Gen. Munic. Law, Art. 12a) on this subject is as follows: “§ 238. Private Streets. The body creating such planning commission may at any time, by ordinance or resolution provide that no plan, plot or description, show- ing the layout of any highway or street upon private property, or of building lots in 130 It still remains to determine by what method the provision allowing Bridgeport to adopt and amend a city plan may become a part of her charter. The section of the Home Rule law already cited! evidently authorizes the in- sertion of such a clause in a charter proposed under it. If such a charter is probably soon to be adopted, this would seem a good method of securing this power for Bridgeport. If not, it may be obtained under another law, passed in the same session of the legislature, to which the reference is given below’, or by special statute. 2. EXCESS OR INCIDENTAL CONDEMNATION. There is one power, most useful in the construction of the public features of a city, which several cities in Connecticut possess,? but which Bridgeport still lacks. I refer to the so-called power of excess condemnation. Under our national and state constitutions, as interpreted by our de- cisions, private property may lawfully be taken only for public use. In con- structing a street, a park, or almost any public work, it is often desirable to take land outside the physical limits of the main improvement. This is done for some purpose regarded as incidental to the principal enterprise. It is unfortunate that usage in this country, compels us to call such taking “‘excess”, for its legal justification is that, being incidental to the main improvement, the taking is really an integral part of it and therefore for a public purpose. The early advocates of excess or incidental condemnation in _ this country urged it principally as a method of recouping a part of the cost of public works. There is hardly any public enterprise—the cutting of a new street or the widening of an old one in the settled part of a city; the laying out of a boulevard; the construction of a public building or civic centre; the construction of a municipal subway or other transit line—that, if wisely under- taken and carried out, does not to some extent augument neighboring land values in excess of the increase thus caused throughout the city. It may well be regarded as good business for the city to take this neighboring land and resell it at a profit to help pay the expenses of the entire undertaking. There are, however, as we shall see, other methods of accomplishing much the same result.* connection with or in relation to such highway or street shall, within the limits of any municipality having a planning commission, as aforesaid, be received for record in the office of the clerk of the county where such real property is situated until a copy of said plan, plot or description has been filed with said commission and it has certified, with relation thereto, its approval thereof. Such certificate shall be re- corded as a part of the record of said original instrument containing said plan, plot, or description. No such street or highway which has not received the approval of the planning commission shall be accepted by said city or village until the matter has been referred to such commission under the provision of section two hundred and thirty-six of this article. But if any such street is plotted or laid out in accordance with the map of said municipality, adopted according to law, then it shall not be necessary to file such copy, or obtain or record such certificate. The authorities of Hartford have been given a somewhat similar power. (Spec. Laws, 1909, No. 74); see also the authorities of New London (Ib. 1913, No. 351, Sec. 14) 1Ante. p. 125. 2p, A. 1915, ch. 319, Sec. 2. *Hartford, Special Acts 1907, No. 61, Sec. 7;New Haven, Special Acts 1913, No. 243, Sec. 8. ‘See p. 150 and ff. 131 At present incidental condemnation is more often urged as a necessary method of controlling the land adjacent to a public improvement. A boule- vard, for instance, upon which money in excess of its utility cost has been spent to make it pleasing to the eye, is often rendered ugly by the use to which private owners put the adjacent land. It is certainly bad business to allow the money spent to embellish a boulevard to be wasted in this way. For this reason the advocates of incidental condemnation urge that the neighboring land be taken by the city and resold with covenants to prevent it from defacing the boulevard or other public work. For the same reason and in the same way the height and even perhaps the architecture of structures close to the buildings constituting the civic or educational group of a city, or other public buildings of which a city is proud, should be controlled. The height of build- ings has in fact been thus regulated in this country.? The greatest need of incidental condemnation in Bridgeport as elsewhere is in connection with the cutting through of new streets and the widening of existing ones in the parts of a city already laid out in streets, as recommended, in many cases, in Chapter III of Mr. Nolen’s report. Such a cutting necessari- ly leaves outside the lines of the new street, remnants of lots of such a size and shape as to be unsuitable for building lots. For this reason the city with- out the power of incidental condemnation, pays the owner of the lot nearly the value of the entire lot, while still leaving in him title to the remnant of it. This, however, is not the most serious aspect of the matter. The remnant, itself unsuited to development, shuts off the property back of it from the street and prevents its improvement also. In this way the character of development and values along the entire street are permanently lowered, with a resulting loss to the private owner of principal and profits, and to the city of taxes on normal values. With incidental condemnation the city could avoid these losses to itself and to the land owner by taking the remnant and enough contiguous land to make suitable building lots, and selling it for speedy and suitable development. These considerations are of great practical importance to Bridgeport at this time in connections other than those of street widenings and _ extensions and the cutting through of new streets. Mr. Nolen in Chapter III] of his report has recommended the construction of a civic group at the intersection of Fairfield Ave. and State St.—a part of the city where land values are com- paratively low. These low values make incidental condemnation doubly ad- vantageous. If the city buys land here it can do so at a moderate price, adding to the effectiveness of its civic centre, if not with a financial profit, at least at a very moderate cost; while if the city does not buy, there is danger that tne neighboring land will be put to uses that will lower the character of the de- velopment and values in the entire section. It cannot be said that excess or incidental condemnation in all its phases ‘Mass. Acts, 1898, ch. 452; Atty Gen. v. Williams, 174 Mass. 476; Atty Gen. v. Williams, 178 Mass. 330. Mass. Acts, 1902, ch. 543; See generally, McQuillan, Munic. Corps, Sec. 929, 1485. Lewis, Eminent Domain, (3rd ed.), Sec. 271. It would seem that Farist Steel Co. v. Bridgeport, 60 Conn. 278 is not contra; the decision rather turning upon whether a harbor line was actually laid out as an aid to navigation. 132 is clearly constitutional. There are judicial dicta against the right of the city to enter into such a transaction for financial profit. Then, too, except in a clear case, many would hesitate to urge a city at this stage in our municipal history to engage in avoidable real estate transactions. There are decisions and dicta more or less strongly for and against the right to take land for the protection of a neighboring improvement. On the whole the cases and the practice would seem to be in favor of such a right. Of the constitutionality, and absolute necessity, however, of the power of incidental condemnation as a remedy for the evil of remnants, there seems to be little room for doubt. Bridgeport would probably be safe in obtaining and: relying upon the power of excess or incidental condemnation by a state statute. In several states it has been thought necessary to obtain a constitutional amendment before passing such a law. This has not been the practice in Connecticut. Without such an amendment several cities in the state have been given this right, and there would seem to be no reason why Bridgeport also should not receive it in this manner. 3. BUILDING REGULATION AND:DISTRICTING. Bridgeport, like other modern cities, consists of land devoted to streets, parks, sites for public buildings, and similar public features; and of land used or intended for houses, stores, factories, and other private purposes; the private land exceeding in extent the land publicly held. We are apt to think of city planning as the control of the development of the public features of a city. Important as this is, the guidance of private development is certainly no less important. In the absence of such guidance it is impossible to secure either the proper development of privately held land, or that correspondence be- tween the private and the public features of the city essential to their common use and efficiency in the unified city. In the absence of the control of privately held land, it is impossible to ensure its proper development. For instance, the open spaces due to broad streets, building lines, parks and playgrounds, so far as they exist in Bridge- port or any district in it, provide a certain amount of protection against the spread of fire, a certain quantity of light and air to the houses there situated. No such provision of open space, however, can be relied on as adequate. In 1Massachusetts, in 1911 (Art. X part 1) Ohio, (Art. XVIII Sec. 10) and Wisconsin, (Art. XI. Sec. 3a;) in 1912, and New York, in 1913 (Art. 1, Sec. 7) have passed constitutional amendments authorizing excess condemnation. Connecticut, without such an amendment, gave this power in 1907 to Hartford (Special Laws, No. 61) and in 1913 to New Haven. (Special Laws, No. 243) Hartford has on several oc- casions used this power with reference to small gores. Ohio in 1904 (Annot. Stats. ch. 2, p. 755) Virginia in 1905 (ch. 194) Pennsylvania in 1907 (No. 315) Mary- land in 1908 (ch. 166) and Oregon in 1913 (ch. 269) have also passed such laws without constitutional amendments. The Pennsylvania Act has been declared un- constitutional (Penn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Phila. 242, Penn. St. Rep. 47) As a means of recoupment excess condemnation has been said to be illegal (Opinion of Justices, 204 Mass. 607) but as a remedy for remnants, legal (Opinion of Justices, 204 Mass. 616). If, as it would seem, the power of eminent domain may be exercised for purposes of embellishment (See p. 132 note | above) excess condem- nation would also, it would seem, be legal as a method of preventing the disfigurement of public works. The Supreme Court of the United States has not as yet passed on excess condemnation in any of its phases. 133 spite of it buildings are being constructed so close together as to invite con- flagrations, and so crowd the lots on which they stand as to be unsanitary for lack of light and air. Nor is it economical or just to furnish private land owners with the added land necessary and proper for their private buildings at public expense. Without the guidance of the private use of land, it is impossible to secure that correspondence between the private and the public features of the city essential to their common use in a unified and efficient community. If for instance the streets are too broad for the houses that line them, then the expense of street construction is unduly great; but if high buildings covering most or all of the lot are allowed on narrow streets, there is all the waste and annoyance of congestion. Mr. Nolen, in his third chapter, has shown to what an extent Bridgeport, in its down town district, suffers from this latter cause. Bridgeport lacks the power to control the construction of private build- ings essential to the complete harmonious planning of the city. She should have power to limit and regulate by districts the bulk and use of buildings to be erected in the city. The necessity of regulation of buildings: to prevent the occurrence and spread of fire has always been felt and such regulations have existed in civilized countries from time immemorial. Building regulations to secure light and air so necessary for the public health are by no means new, but it is only in comparatively recent times that the importance of light and air in abundance, and of regulations to obtain as much of them as is reasonably possible, has been fully realized. Nowadays we all know that it is only by light, and perhaps by the direct rays of the sun, that tubercular and many other disease germs are readily killed; that abundance of sun and air, in working as well as living rooms, is necessary for the health and vitality of everyone; and that recreation in the air is especially important for the child. The figures submitted by the Garden City Associations of England? show a startling difference between the growth and weight of the Garden city and ordinary city child—startling, because so small a percentage of children are privileged to live in garden cities. It has For a history of regulation, abroad and in this country, including districting, with references to legislation, and citation of authorities, see Report of Heights of Buildings Commission, New York City, 1913; also the following articles by the writer; Build- ing Regulation by Districts, being No. 24 of the Publications of the National Housing Association, 105 E. 22nd St., New York City, 1914, with short bibliography; City Planning Restrictions on Private Property, in ‘““American City’’ for June and July, 915, appearing also as chapter III in the volume entitled ‘‘City Planning” edited by John Nolen and issued by the National Municipal League (D. Appleton & Co. 1916). "The following extracts are from Chapter VIII “Public Health and Social Considera- ie1aj of “Town Planning’’ by George Cadbury, Jr., (Longmans Green and Co., “No discussion of the advantages of Town Planning would be complete without some reference to the question of Public Health and the Social Considerations con- nected therewith. Whatever objections may be raised to other aspects of the matter nobody is now concerned to deny the value of Town Planning in relation to the health and welfare of the people........ To take one obvious illustration which appeals to the whole nation because of its serious proportions—the loss to industry consequent upon the ill health of the workers. That loss cannot be measured financially, but the loss in other directions is no less incapable of assessment. 134 “It is quite true that a great deal of the ill-health will continue, despite all wise precautions, but there can be no question that much is preventable by wise measures of sanitation, among which Town Planning must always take a very high place. The effects may take a generation or two to show themselves fully, but the result will nevertheless be very well worth the time of waiting. The vital statistics of Letchworth for 1912, now available, once more confirm the contention above set forth. The following comparative statistics have been compiled from the Registrar-General’s annual summary: TOWN Infantile Mortality Ordinary Death- Rate per 1000 Births Rate per 1000 Bourneville 55.0 4. Letchworth Hampstead Bournemouth Lewisham Hammersmith London Hartlepool Stockport Burnley Stepney Bethnal Green Poplar Bermondsey Middlesbro’ Shoreditch Liverpool Finsbury SION ono oon SoooDO SOOO OSCOOOFK =—=NNN—_OCOUOooCohoOoCcoON dW Ue TO ny oh ON PP PBNARAARREGLS OOD DOK = NN @WAWNANANA=hOD— The Medical Officer for Health for the district in his annual report says:— ‘Numbers of the children coming from large populous towns were anaemic, poor in physique, and large numbers were suffering from adenoid growths and throat af- fections. This state of things is fast disappearing with the new conditions under which they live. “Letchworth. ...Garden City, it must be remembered, is a busy manufacturing town containing forty industries, and with a population of over 8,000, drawn from the crowded industrial centres. The extraordinary difference in the Infantile Mor- tality Rate, may largely be ascribed to the fact that the smallest cottages do not number more than 12 to the acre, whereas self contained working-class dwellings in most industrial districts number thirty, forty, or even fifty to the acre.” pp. 122-124. “The city of Liverpool has recently carried out some important housing schemes, and has published the information which has been collected with regard to the cost and as to the social and moral effects. Extensive unsanitary areas have been cleared and the people previously living in these areas have been re-housed. Open streets have been provided in place of closed courts, open spaces have been provided at the rear of the houses, and a further valuable provision has been made for children's playgrounds. Under these new conditions the death-rate has fallen by more than one- half, and the average annual death-rate from phthisis has fallen from 4 per thousand to 1.9 per thousand. The disappearance of typhus fever is no less noteworthy, yet in Liverpool for the first time in its history not one single death from typhus was recorded during the entire year.” p. 128 The following is from the “‘Bourneville Village Trust’’, issued by Sir George Cadbury, p. 2:— “The vital statistics of Bourneville, compared with those of the urban district of which Bourneville is a part, and those of England and Wales:—Bourneville is 4 miles southwest of Birmingham:—Death rate per 1,000, average for 5 years ending 1910; Bourneville, 5.7; Urban district 10.5 England and Wales 14.5. Infant mortality per 1000 live births, average for 5 yrs. ending 1910; Bourneville 62.4; Urban district 87.6; England and Wales 117.4. Comparison, 1910-1911, between children in Floodgate Street area, Birmingham [a slum] and Bourneville: WEIGHT. Age 6 8 10 12 yrs. 6 8 10 12 yrs. Bourneville 45 52.9 61.6 71.8lbs. 43.5 50.3 62.1 74.7 Ibs. Floodgate 39 47.8 56.1 63.2lbs. 39.4 45.6 53.9 65.7 Ibs. HEIGHT 48.8 9 54.8 in. 56.0 in. pp — Nt > @ oa w N Bourneville 44, . . 41 44.8 48.1 53.1 in. I 51. Floodgate 9 46.2 49.6 52.3 in. 135 often been pointed out that garden cities attract a somewhat superior class of people; so that such figures as these do not mean quite all that at first glance they seem to imply; but after all allowances are freely made, we may fairly say, from this and other evidence! now so plentiful, that statistics and science confirm what common sense teaches—that abundance of light, sun and air not only tend to promote the public health, but are essential to it. Not only, therefore, to prevent fire, but to furnish sufficient light and air in the interest of the public health, building regulations limiting the size of structures with re- lation to the lots they occupy are essential in the planning of the modern city. The following is a quotation from “‘Co-partnership Housing in Great Britain” by Henry Vivian, J. P. p. 7 being No. 111 of the American City Pamphlets relative to City and Town Improvements” ;— “Dr. Andrew, the medical officer of Health for Hendon, (the urban district in which the Hempsted Garden suburb is situated) gives some interesting figures in his report for 1912. The gross death rate for the whole of this district is 10.14 per 1,000; for the suburb that rate is 3.8; the rate for England and Wales is 13.3. The particulars of infant mortality are equally striking; the rate for the Hendon district is 54 per 1000; for the suburb, 11.2; for England and Wales 95.” For an excellent statement of these and numerous other aspects of this matter with many statistical tables, see an address by Mr. (Now Sir William) Lever, on the oc- casion of the visit of the International Housing Conference to Port Sunlight, August 9, 1907; printed by Lever Brothers, Ltd. Port Sunlight, England. ‘From the mass of evidence other than that furnished by the effect of garden cities, the following has been selected :— AIR AND SUN: “It (the germ of consumption) may live many months, especially in a dark, damp place, but it is usually killed by ordinary daylight within one week, and by direct sunlight it is killed within a few hours.’” A handbook on the Prevention of Tuber- culosis, Appendix 5; the Germ of Consumption, by J. H. Huddleston, M. D. p. 145. ‘Very numerous experiments have been made during the last few years with reference to light upon the various microbes and it is well settled that the direct rays of the sun very promptly destroy the vitality of many disease germs.” Letter in Medical Record of November 10, 1894, by George M. Sternberg, Surgeon General, U. S. A. Sunlight is a powerful disinfecting agent. This has been proved many times by actual experiments. If a thin layer of material (sputum) coughed up by a consumptive be exposed to the direct action of bright sunlight for a few hours the microorganisms are all killed. Diffuse light out of doors kills the germs in a few days. Infectious material left indoors, especially in a poorly lighted and unventilated room, may retain its virulence for weeks or months. With other microorganisms the effect of bright sunlight is even more pronounced. It is therefore apparent that the proper light- ing and ventilating of living rooms and sleeping rooms should be a matter of great con- cern to the housewife.” The Prevention and Control of Disease by F. Ramaley and C. E. Giffin, p. 27. See to the same effect, ““The Action of Micro-organisms’’ by Arthur Downs, in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Vol. XI, p. 14, M. S. Airlong, in Compte Rendu des Seances de l’Academie des Sciences, Vol. 104, p. 701; “‘Bacteria in Relation to Country Life’, by L. Lipman, p. 40; “The Science of Living’, by W. S. Sadler, p. 17. “Light is stimulant, darkness sedative. It may be generally stated that the absence of light directly causes, in the healthy, depression of mental and vital activity, leading to general debilitated condition, and in the convalescent delays recovery bodily and mental.” Public Health Problems, by J. F. Sykes, p. 37. See to the same effect, ‘The Science of Living’, by W. B. Sadler, p. 16; “Atmospheric Pollution in English and Scottish Towns” in “Engineering’’ (London) Vol. CXX p. 437 (Nov. 19, 1915). DUST: “Several series of experiments were made in Cambridge, Mass. during the past year for the purpose of studying the distribution of atmospheric dust in different districts of the city. The work was done at the instance of the Cambridge Sanitary Com- mission; [Here follows a description of methods used and tables giving results in detail. In summarizing these results, the writer says:] ‘‘An attempt was made to have the sampling stations scattered in all classes of districts throughout the city, from the residential to the manufacturing sections. ...The locations in which the smallest amount of solids were col- lected was in the residence districts in each set of experiments, while the largest amounts were collected near the industrial centres or in portions of the city where conditions favored dust formation. The effect of an industrial centre with large factories and poor streets upon 136 With the growing use of building regulations to secure light and air, and the growing knowledge of the value of a sufficient provision of these neces- sities of life for as large a proportion of a city’s population as possible, has come the recognition of the fact that it is practically impossible to enact adequate building regulations which shall be the same for an entire city. In all cities there are districts where there is great concentration. The the atmosphere of the surrounding district is shown in series Il and III. The highest figures for total solids were obtained in Mechanics Square. This is a center of the very poor district of the city in which there are numerous factories and plants and streets in poor condition. “Studies in Air Cleanliness’’ by Geo. C. Whipple (Professor of Sanitary Engineering in Harvard University) and Melville C. Whipple, in Heating and Ventilating Magazine for July, 1915, p. 23. See also ‘The Pathogenicity [i. e. disease-causing quality] of Street Dust’’ being a report by the Public Health Committee of the New York Academy of Medicine, with bibliography reprinted by William Wood and Co. New York City from the Medical Record of December 18, 1915, “The Problem of City Dust’ by Reginald P. Bolton, in The Transactions of the American Society of Heating and Ventilating Engineers 1915. “The Results of Studies upon the Dust and Bacteria Contents of the Air of Cities’? by Melville C. Whipple, Instructor in Sanitary Chemistry, Harvard College, Cambridge, read before the Laboratory Section of the American Public Health Association Jacksonville, Florida, December 3, 1914; published in the American Journal of Public Health at Boston, Massa- chusetts, August, 1915. SMOKE: ‘The Smoke Nuisance”, by Frederick Law Olmsted and Harlan Page Kelsey, Amer. Civic Ass’n, Wash. Dec. 2d ed. Feb. 1911. “Bibliography of Smoke and Smoke Prevention”, compiled by Ellwood H. McClelland, librarian; published by the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa. 1913. Includes references to laws and ordinances, being Bulletin No. 2, Smoke Investigation. “Papers on the Influence of Smoke on Health”, edited by Oscar Klotz and William Charles White, published by the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa. 1914, being Smoke Investigation; Bulletin No. 9. Note especially ““A Study of the Influence of Varying Densities of City Smoke on the Mortality from Pneumonia and Tuberculosis’, by William Charles White and C. H. Marcy, with map showing smoke areas by wards in Pittsburgh and comparisons of death rates; contains a bibliography. “City Smoke Ordinances, and Smoke Abatement’’ by Samuel B. Flagg, Department of the Interior Bureau of Mines, Bulletin No. 49, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 1912. “The Smoke Shroud, How to Banish It,"” Rochester Chamber of Commerce, 1915; “Atmospheric Pollution in English and Scottish Towns” cited above; ‘Smoke, A Study of Town Air’’ by Cohen and Ruston (London, Edward Arnold, 1912). NOISE: “There is in city life no factor more apt to produce brain unrest, and its sequel of neurotism, than the incessant stimulation of the brain through the auditory organs.” Monograph on “Noise in its Sanitary Aspect’’ by Dr. Hyslop, quoted by Hollis Godfrey in “The City’s Noise.” Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 104, p. 601. See also same, page 602. “When we consider the wholly unnecessary noises of a large city—the whistles and bells, the street cries of the news and other vendors, and the piano organ—and recognize that each one of these imposes a strain on the little muscle attached to the stapes, called the etapedius, which is always therefore more or less in a condition of contraction, or at any rate intermittent action, it is not to be wondered that fatigue of the ear and brain is apt to set in, and that insomnia, and even insanity, are frequently induced by these means. Without mental concentration no effective work can be done because attention is at the root of all progress, and when this is disturbed by incessant noise of one kind or another the brain cells are apt to have their balance disturbed. ““The Laws of Life and Health,”” by Alexander Byrce, pp. 176-7. See to the same effect, ““An Effort to Suppress Noise” by Mrs. I. Rice, in Forum Vol. 37, quoting Prof. William H. Thompson on p. 568; and Dr. John H. Gardner on p. 559; also a pamphlet issued by The City Club of Chicago, through its Committee on the Reduction of Noise; references on noise by Seattle Public Library in Seattle Municipal News for September 25, 1915. Campaigns for the reduction of noise have been carried on at various times in many cities, including not only Chicago but London, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Louisville, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Baltimore, and Canadian cities. Miss Adelaide R. Hasse, Chief of the Documents Division, and Dr. C. C. Williamson, Librarian of the Municipal Reference Branch of the New York City Public Library have rendered valuable assistance in the preparation of this note. ; 137 population map, submitted as a part of Mr. Nolen’s report,: shows graphical- ly that there are in fact, such districts in Bridgeport and where they are located. Usually values have adapted themselves to these conditions. Mr. Nolen’s land value map? shows that this also has occurred in Bridgeport. To pass regu- lations securing for land that is, or is to become, vacant in such districts any- thing like adequate light and air, would be to discriminate sharply between occupied and unoccupied lots in these districts and practically to confiscate not a small part of the value of those which are unoccupied. On the other hand, any regulation that would be fair to these congested districts would be practi- cally inoperative in large sections of the city, where values neither demand nor warrant such intensity; and would allow in the rest of the city a gradual ap- proach to the condition of its worst parts. The only regulations at the same time reasonable and generally effective are, therefore, those varying with and suited to the varying land values and conditions of the various parts of the city. Districting, therefore, is the only practical method of preventing the spread of congestion.® But the prevention of the spread of congestion is not the sole object of districting. Districting is also the only method by which there can be ob- tained that specialization in the use of land, essential to its most economical and efficient use and its highest value. By natural location, and by location with relation to city utilities and development generally, much of the land within a city is specially fitted for certain uses. Thus in Bridgeport, as Mr. Nolen’s map of Present building distributiont shows, heavy industry naturally seeks the water front or the railway; workingmen try to obtain houses near their work, or near transit lines that will bring them cheaply and quickly to it, etc. But location is not the only essential in the fitness of land for its best use. A section of the city suitable for residence, for instance, is often ruined for that purpose by the intrusion of factories, with their smoke, noise and odors; and, if a high class residence section, by the coming of business. When industry or business is best suited to a district, and land will sell higher for such purposes than any other, the locality is bound to be transformed, and nothing can be done, or should be attempted, to prevent it. But intrusion often occurs where this is not the fact. Cases in Bridgeport will occur to you all where a single factory has invaded a residence street for some more or less accidental reason, and no others have seen any advantage in following. A slump in land values has been the result, because the locality was no longer pleasant or healthful to live in; and houses have been put to uses to which they were ill adapted, or changed over, or left vacant, to the loss of the owners and the community. This is one of the commonest causes of slums. 1No. 43. "No. 55. "For a fuller statement and illustration of this position, see the writer's ‘Building Regulation by Districts’ being No. 24 of the Publications of the National Housing Association, 105 E. 22 St., New York City 1914. ‘No. 68. 138 Building regulation alone is often sufficient to adapt a locality to a special use, and raise its land values. Often land is reasonably well suited for resi- dential purposes, for instance, if only buildings offensive to residents are kept away. Still more often regulation is essential to preserve the best usefulness of a district and values there. It is of course only future building which is regulated.1_ Past mistakes are with difficulty if at all remedied. It is for this reason that it is so vital to Bridgeport that her great growth should be along right lines. There is one part of Bridgeport in which conditions, especially traffic conditions, have become intolerable. This section is the downtown business section. For the immediate relief of traffic congestion here, Mr. Nolen in the third chapter of his report has suggested that one of the two street railroad tracks be taken off Main Street between Fairfield Ave. and State Street and located on Harrison or Water Street. I understand that the street railroad company is in favor of such a change, or at least does not oppose it. The consent of the company to this measure is not, however, essential. The re- location in this way of the tracks of the street railroad is a matter exclusively within the authority of the state legislature. There can be no doubt of the right of the state to pass a statute compelling this change in the location of these tracks.? It should not be forgotten, however, that such a relocation of tracks as has been suggested is merely a palliative for congestion which is increasing in this section of the city; and that, as Mr. Nolen has pointed out, the only practical cures are (1) the regulation by districts throughout the city of the height, area and use of buildings; (2) replanning in such a way as to enlarge the business section. Another evil in the modern city from which Bridgeport is by no means free is needless ugliness. This is due here as elsewhere in the United States not so much to failure to spend money to create beauty as to careless neglect to prevent its defacement after having obtained it. Thus the city lays out a beautiful boulevard or quiet park at considerable expense, only to allow it to be fringed with obtrusive billboards; and encourages private citizens to build In California, Los Angeles passed a regulation the effect of which was to expel an industry from a residential neighborhood; and the courts upheld the regulation (Ex parte Hadacheck, 165 Cal. 416; Hadacheck v. Los Angeles, 239 U. S. 394, cited on pages 143-144 below); but retroactive regulations, even if legal, seem harsh and unwise. "The right to lay a single street railroad track on Main Street was granted to the Bridgeport Horse Railroad Company in 1864 (Spec. L. Vol. V p. 607) and extended in 1866 (ib. VI, 28) The charter was by its terms subject to alteration, amendment or repeal by the State legislature. In 1893, the Bridgeport Railway Company was incorporated, and consolidated with all the street railways any part of whose lines were within the limits of the city, under the name of the Bridgeport Traction Com- pany. The consolidated company was authorized to double track any portion of its right of way, and use any motive power except steam. (ib. XI. 872) In 1845 a statute was passed (P. A. ch. XII) making charters of corporations there- after granted subject to alteration, amendment and repeal, unless otherwise express- ly stated therein. This statute (now Gen. Stats. 1902, Sec. 3313) has been in force ever since it was first passed. There was no provision in any of the charters re- ferred to, exempting them from the liability to alteration, amendment and repeal. The right to maintain two tracks on Main Street at the point in question, being expressly granted by statute, may be taken away by statute, but not by the city. 139 Ll attractive homes but neglects to prevent the erection of ugly signs on neigh- boring property. Billboards are now recognized as an evil. They increase the fire hazard, act as a screen for lawlessness and nuisance, and by their ugliness lower the value of neighboring real estate. It may not be possible, or even desirable, to forbid billboards and similar advertising in the business portions of our cities; but in residential neighborhoods signs and billboards are less profitable and in every way more objectionable. Billboards are not residential structures and therefore may, if desired, be excluded from residential districts.* In her districting Bridgeport should not copy in detail systems in force elsewhere, but rather should endeavor to work out and apply a system suited to her own needs. For instance, the New York system still all too much allows congestion and confusion to continue and spread in New York City, and en- courages the tenement house, because existing conditions make it impracticable to do otherwise. Bridgeport may, and should, do better.? It would probably be wise, however, to adopt the street as the districting unit as is so much done abroad and is proposed in New York City. The large broad district is harder to relate to other districts; the narrow district is more flexible. The problem of regulation too is usually one of proportion of building to street under given circumstances and conditions. Where a broad district is desired, it may be obtained by an aggregation of parallel streets.° We have thus far considered the expediency of regulating building in cities by districts; let us now take up the legal aspects of the subject. The constitutions of the United States and of most of the states, includ- ing Connecticut, provide that property shall not be taken for a public use except on payment of just compensation. For the establishment of a system with such a wide general effect as that of building regulation, compensation for any interference with property rights is not practicable. Our courts have held, however, that reasonable measures for the promotion of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare are constitutional, even if they involve, as does building regulation, some such interference. The power of the states to pass such measures is called the ‘‘police power’, and it is there- fore under this power that building regulations, whether by districts or other- wise, must be sustained. It has been said that the promotion of the public health, safety and morals is within the police power in the narrower meaning of the term; the promotion of the general welfare, within its broader meaning.* Evidently the promotion of the public health, safety and morals is also for the general welfare, the narrow power being included in the broad one. ‘See in this connection, Cusack Co. v. Chicago, 267 Ill. 344. *See the writer's ““Word of Warning” in the “American City” for May, 1916. *For a fuller statement of this position see the writer's article in the ‘American City" for December, 1913, p. 517, entitled ‘The Street as the Basis for Districting.” ‘Freund, “Police Power,”’ Sec. 10 (Callaghan & Co., Chicago, 1904;) Report of Height: of Buildings Commission of New York City, 1913, p. 8 citing epee the power includes the promotion of the general welfare. 140 Districting regulations are two sorts;—regulations of the bulk and of the use of buildings. The more conservative regulations of buildings by their bulk, although they probably increase the usefulness of land and its values, are chiefly in- tended to secure to all a certain liberal minimum of light, sun and air impossible under congested conditions. They are, therefore, within the police power in its narrower sense. [Illustrations of what would be desirable for Bridgeport have been outlined in Chapter IV. of Mr. Nolen’s report on the subdivision of city land into lots and blocks, giving types and restrictions proposed, with examples. More liberal bulk regulations, although they certainly tend to increase health and vigor—light and sun are more abundant and air more pure under rural than under city conditions—also increase the amenities and land values. These broader measures, although within the police power in its more ex- tended sense, might not, by more conservative courts, be regarded as within its narrower meaning. The more conservative regulations creating districts according to the use of buildings, such as the division of a city into residential and industrial areas, excluding from residential districts a carefully chosen and described list of industries, are clearly health measures; so that they also are within the police power in its narrower sense, in spite of the fact that in addition they increase the amenities and land values. The more detailed regulations accord- ing to use, undoubtedly make land more useful and valuable; and would seem unquestionably to be within the police power in its broader sense; but not, probably, within the narrower meaning of the word. Our conclusion, therefore, with regard to the constitutionality of district- ing, whether by bulk or by use, is that it is only the more limited regulations that can safely be attempted under the police power in its narrower sense; although both broader and more limited provisions for districting by bulk and by use, are within the police power in its broader sense. ’ The regulations proposed for Bridgeport and shown on the maps in Mr. Nolen’s report of proposed building zones,! while not, all of them, within the police power in its narrower sense, are nevertheless, it is believed, reasonably conservative. The Constitution of the United States,? and that of Connecticut? and most of the other states, guarantee to all the equal protecion of the laws. Does districting violate this provision? It has been well said in this connection that this guarantee “‘means that the government shall not impose particular burdens upon individuals or corporations to meet dangers for which they cannot in justice be held responsible, and that all legislative discriminations and classifications shall be justified by differences of status, act or occupa- tion, corresponding to the difference of legislative measure. The idea of equality excludes in principle both particular burdens and special privileges, but admits of reasonable classification.’’* ‘Nos. 84, 85, 86, 87. 714th Amendment. %Article First, Sec. |. . ‘Report of Heights of Buildings Commission, New York City, 1913, p. 24. 141 It may be claimed that in enacting severer regulations in the case of dis- tricting by bulk, for districts where land is less valuable, than for districts where land is more valuable, there is discrimination. But just the contrary is the case. By varying the regulations to fit the conditions they are made to bear equally upon all districts. In the same way the differences in regulations by use are based upon and made to fit differences in fitness for use; and thus by putting all land to its highest use the regulations are in a very real and advan- tageous sense equal for all. This is the aim of all classification—so to vary 1egulations as to benefit all, if not equally, then at least to the greatest extent possible in each case. The principle of classification sometimes authorizes actual inequality 1 treatment. A maximum height limit, for instance, applied only to buildings thereafter erected, favors the owners of buildings already constructed. A cutting off of the excess in height of buildings already in existence is of as much importance to public health, safety and convenience as limiting the height of an equal number of future buildings. This inequality or classifica- tion ‘finds abundant justification, however, when we apply the control- ling principle of reasonableness and proportionateness of means to ends. The reconstruction of existing buildings would impose burdens on private owners disproportionate to the public gain. Such regulations, would therefore, be unreasonable and void. It seems that classifica- tion or exemption essential to the reasonableness of a regulation is itself reasonable.* Let us now turn to the decisions which'‘more or less directly support the principle on which districting is founded, as well as the decisions which directly sustain it. The simplest form of building regulation is the fixed limit of height, ap- plying to all buildings within a city, without distinction as to class or location of building. Such limitations have existed from time immemorial in Europe, and are now common in this county. There can be no doubt of the con- stitutionality of reasonable regulations of this sort.? Height and area regulations varying with the class of buildings, but other- wise the same for an entire municipality, are common, abroad and here. The best known example of such regulation here is that of the tenement house laws, now so general in this country.2 Other instances of it are to be found in the special requirements of ordinances and laws relating to the theatres, hotels, etc.t Rules of this sort are instances of the principle of classification applied to building regulation, and are clearly legal.® The height of buildings is often regulated with relation to the width of the various streets on which the various buildings stand. The permissible maxi- ‘Report 2 Heights of Buildings Commission of New York City, 1913, p. 27 and cases cited. 4Ib. p. 4, and cases there cited. *For the Connecticut law, see P. A. 1911, ch. 220, and 1913, ch. 29. ‘For instances of such regulation in Connecticut, see Gen. Stats. 1902, Sec. 2628 and ff; P. A. 1911, ch. 239; ib. 1913, ch. 81. Revert of Heights of Buildings Commission of New York City, 1913, Ib. p. 23, also pp. 142 mum height is thus fixed at some fraction or multiple of the street width. Such regulations have long prevailed in Europe, and are to be found in this country. It should be noted that this is in reality a form of districting, the district varying with the width of the street. The courts have sustained height limitations based in part on street widths.? Laws and ordinances creating fire limits in cities, within which building must be more or less fire resisting, but outside of which this is not required, are very common in this country,” and of undoubted legality. It need hardly be pointed out that this is the regulation of building by districts pure and simple. When we remember that the limits of a given municipality are often more or less accidental, and at all times subject to change, it is difficult to see why identity of law and administration throughout it should be essential. Indeed, it is a common practice in-this country to divide a city into districts so as to facilitate differences of administration in different parts of it; examples of this are; tax, park, sewer, paving, judicial districts, etc., etc. Bridgeport itself is divided into two districts in which the tax rates and the ordinance power of the Common Council differ.¢| Why should there not be building districts there also? Direct judicial authority on the subject of districting is by no means lack- ing. The question has been squarely raised in three states, and decided in favor of districting.» Under our federal system, however, large constitutional questions are rarely settled conclusively until state decisions are passed upon by the Supreme Court of the United States. The case of Welch v. Swasey, decided by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in favor of the height districts of Boston, was affirmed some years ago by the Supreme Court of the United States.¢ This result put at rest all question of the constitutionality of bulk districting; for the arguments for and against restricting the height and the area of buildings, whether by districts or otherwise, are practically identical. A decision of the United States Supreme Court just rendered—Hadacheck Los Angeles’—upholds a California decision in favor of use districting.® The Calfornia regulation created a residential district in Los Angeles, from which industry was excluded. Any complete districting system should provide also for districts in which business is forbidden. It might seem, there- "Report of Heights of Buildings Commission of New York City, 1913, pp. 10-12. "For the charter provision in Bridgeport on this subject see p. 147, note 4 below. 'McQuillan, ‘Municipal Corporation’’ Callaghan & Co., Chicago, 1912, Sec. 948 and cases there cited. ‘Special Laws, 1907. No. 461, Sec. 2, 5, 53; Ib. 1913, No. 425, p. 1203; Ib. 1915, No. 6, p. 3. Sec. 1, 2, 3. "Welch v. Swasey, 193 Mass. 364. Cochran v. Preston, 108 Md. 220; Ex Parte Quong Wo. 161 Calif. 220; Ex Parte Montgomery, 163 Calif. 457; Ex Parte Hadacheck, 165 Calif. 416. See also Eubank v. Richmond 110 Va. 749, 226 U.S. 137. As an instance of classification, it is interesting to note the decision that the dif- ferences between residential and other parts of a city are sufhicently great to justify differences in the regulation of outdoor advertising. Cusack Co. v. Chicago, 267 Ill. 344, "214 U.S. 91. 1239 U.S. 394. ‘Ex Parte Hadacheck, 165 Cal. 416, cited above. 143 fore, as if the advocates of use districting had won but half their case; but with the legality of districting by bulk already assured, and the case for use districting in one of its two aspects won, city planners may well feel that the principles on which all districting rests, are established, and complete victory practically assured. It may be of assistance to give a very brief history of the districting movement. The first employment of the system in anything like its complete form was in Frankfort, in 1891, under the administration as Mayor of the well- known Dr. Adickes. It is now the established system throughout Germany and Austria and in Scandinavian countries; exists to some extent in both French and German Switzerland; was adopted in England to some degree in her Planning Act of 1909;! is to be found in Canada; and has been intro- duced in nine states in this country.” In 1913, New York City appointed a commission on height, size and ar- 19 Edward 7, c. 44. *For citations, see Report of Heights of Buildings Commission, New York City, pp. 32 ff. and pp. 94 ff. Since that report was written, the Second Class Cities Housing Law of New York State, (Laws 1913, ch. 774) which it cites; has been repealed, but not on account of any opposition to its districting feature, with which only two of its 159 sections were con- cerned. Indeed, this part of the law was so popular that several second class cities im- mediately on its passage took advantage of it to pass districting ordinances. These ordi- nances it would seem (People v. Roberts, 153 N. Y. Sup. 143, decided May Ist, 1915.) remain in force, if originally valid and constitutional. The sections of the housing law on which these ordinances were founded is as follows: “Sec. 9. Residence districts. Whenever two-thirds or more of the owners of record of the linear frontage of one side or street-frontage of any block shall, by written petition to the common council, duly signed and acknowledged, ask that such side or street- frontage of said block be designated as a “residence district’” and the common council shall approve of such petition, such side or street-frontage of said block shall thereupon become a “residence district’” and shall continue to be such until such time as a like petition asking that such side or street-frontage of said block cease to be a “‘residence district’’ shall be presented to the common council and be approved by them. Except as otherwise provided in section twenty-eight, no building other than a private-dwelling or two-family-dwelling or a building used by the city or state for public purposes shall here- after be erected or altered or converted to be so occupied on any lot abutting on such street-frontage so long as it continues to be a “‘residence district’’ except upon the written consent of the owners aforesaid. Such written consents shall be filed in the health de- partment and shall be public records. A “‘block’’ for the purposes of this section is a property division containing one or many lots and bounded by three or more streets. Sec. 28. Buildings on same lot with a dwelling..... No building other than a dwelling or a building intended for the use of the occupants of the dwelling and so used hereafter shall be erected on the same lot with a dwelling...... ee The validity of Section 9 of the housing law has not as yet been authoritatively adju- dicated. A case in an inferior New York Court (People v. Roberts, already mentioned in this note) has held the exclusion of a business establishment from a residential district under an ordinance founded on this section invalid on the ground that the section was unconstitutional. The reason for this decision was apparently because the section. was based upon aesthetic considerations, which is certainly not the fact. Another inferior Court case, however, (In re Russell, 158 N. Y. Supp. 162, decided, April 6, 1916,) has held valid an ordinance (not as it happens based upon the housing law of 1913, but none the less in point) under which a factory was excluded from a residential district. The Russell case was subsequent to the Hadacheck case (cited on p. 143 above) in the Supreme Court of the United States, and cites that case; the Roberts case was adjudicated before the Hadacheck opinion had been handed down. Since the report was written, Pennsylvania in 1915, passed a statute (No. 175, ap- proved May I1) authorizing cities of the first class to pass districting regulations, both as to bulk and as to use of buildings. 144 rangement of buildings, called the Heights of Buildings Commission. This Commission was composed not only of business men, lawyers and students of social problems, taxation and city planning but of men representing real estate interests in all its phases, such as architects, builders, bankers, insurance men and real estate brokers and owners. The men who could by any chance be in- vidiously called theorists were in a very small minority on the Commission. This body of men studied the subject of building regulation both in this country and abroad. Their report should be read as a whole by the student of the subject. The Commission, as may well be supposed, entered upon its labors with widely diverse views; but when these labors were finished its members were with one exception unanimous not only in their opinion that districting was essential in any system of building regulation, but in the sup- port of a concrete plan for districting New York City and of statutes to ac- complish it. The laws recommended by them providing for the appointment of a Commission to divide New York City into districts according both to use and to bulk of buildings were passed with little or no opposition by the New York State legislature;! and that commission, called the Commission on Build- ‘Laws N, Y. 1914, ch. 470, being Sec. 242a and 242b. of the New York City charter. The statutes are in the form recommended by the commission, in their report, _ Appendix |, p..77. There has been added to these sections of the charter (by laws 1916, ch. 497) a provision for the amendment of districting regulations. These sections, as amended, read as follows:— **§242a. The board of estimate and apportionment shall have power to regu- late and limit the height and bulk of buildings hereafter erected and to regulate and determine the area of yards, courts and other open spaces. The board may divide the city into districts of such number, shape and area as it may deem best suited to carry out the purposes of this section. The regulations as to the height and bulk of buildings and the area of yards, courts and other open spaces shall be uniform for each class of buildings throughout each district. The regulations in one or more districts may differ from those in other districts. Such regulations shall be designed to secure safety from fire and other dangers and to promote the public health and welfare, including, so far as conditions may permit, provision for adequate light, air and convenience of access. The board shall pay reasonable regard to the character of buildings erected in each district, the value of the land and the use to which it may be put to the end that such regulations may promote public health, safety and welfare and the most desirable use for which the land of each district may be adapted and may tend to conserve the value of buildings and enhance the value of land through- out the city. The board shall appoint a commission to recommend the boundaries of districts and appropriate regulations to be enforced therein. Such commission shall make a tentative report and hold public hearings thereon at such times and places as said board shall require before submitting its final report. Said board shall not determine the boundaries of any district nor impose any regulation until after the final report of a commission so appointed. After such final report said board shall afford persons interested an opportunity to be heard at a time and place to be specified in a notice of hearing to be published for ten consecutive days in the City Record. The board may from time to time after public notice and hearing amend, supplement or change said regulations or districts but in case a protest against a proposed amendment, supplement or change be presented, duly signed and acknow- ledged by the owners of twenty per centum or more of the frontage proposed to be altered, or by the owners of twenty per centum of the frontage immediately in the rear thereof, or by the owners of twenty per centum of the frontage directly opposite the frontage proposed to be altered, such amendment shall not be passed except by a unanimous vote of the board. §242b. The board of estimate and apportionment may regulate and restrict the loca- tion of trades and industries and the location of buildings designed for specified uses, and may divide the city into districts of such number, shape and area as it may deem best suited to carry out the purposes of this section. For each such district regulations may be imposed designating the trades and industries that shall be excluded or sub- 145 ing Districts and Restrictions, was promptly appointed by the city. Its com- position was similar to that of its predecessor. During the progress of its work, the Commission constantly consulted with the representatives of the various interests to be affected by the regulations it was endeavoring to formu- late, thereby obtaining valuable information and advice, and also familiarizing the public with this novel subject. On March 10, 1916, the Commission issued its tentative report,’ in which all its members joined. The details of this report have been criticized.? but districting along the general lines laid down by the commission has re- ceived such general and such intelligent support that it seems certain that when the commission submits its final revised report, the Board of Estimate and Ap- portionment of the City will in substance adopt it.’ In the Constitutional Convention just over in New York State, friends of districting introduced a constitutional amendment authorizing the Legisla- ture to confer districting powers on cities. Judge O’Brien, a prominent ex-mem- ber of the Supreme Court of New York State, gave it as his opinion when the amendment came up that without question the Legislature already had the right under a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States,‘ to confer districting powers upon cities; and it was for this reason that the introducer of jected to special regulations and designating the uses for which buildings may not be erected or altered. Such regulations shall be designed to promote the public health, safety and general welfare. The board shall give reasonable consideration, among other things, to the character of the district, its peculiar suitability for particular uses, the conservation of property values, and the direction of building development in ac- cord with a well considered plan. The board shall appoint a commission to recom- mend the boundaries of districts and appropriate regulations and restrictions to be im- posed therein. Such commission shall make a tentative report and hold public hearings thereon before submitting its final report at such time as said board shall require. Said board shall not determine the boundaries of any district nor impose any regulations or restrictions until after the final report of a commission so ap- pointed. After such final report said board shall afford persons interested an oppor- tunity to be heard at a time and place to be specified in a notice of hearing to be published for ten consecutive days in the City Record. The board may from time to time after public notice and hearing amend, supplement or change said regulations or districts but in case a protest against a proposed amendment, supplement or change be presented, duly signed and acknowledged by the owners of twenty per centum or more of the frontage proposed to be altered, or by the owners of twenty per centum of the frontage immediately in the rear therof, or by the owners of twenty per centum of the frontage directly opposite the frontage proposd to be altered, such amendment shall not be passed except by a unanimous vote of the board.” Section 242a. refers in terms only to future buildings. In drafting a new statute it might be well to make it certain that the alteration of existing buildings was also included. *Extracts from that report will be found in Ch. V. of Mr. Nolen’s report. "See for instance, “‘A Plea for the Preservation of our Small Parks as Neighborhood Seniren sat “Protecting the Future of New York City,” both issued by the City Club of New York. °On June 2, 1916, the Commission submitted its final report, with accompanying final maps; the report and maps, however, were again amended at various times by the Commission. Subsequently, on July 25, 1916, the Board of Estimate with some changes, adopted them. The Board also authorized the preparation and publication by the Commission of a more detailed report which will be most valuable. ‘The introducer of the amendment states that the case of Welch v. Swasey was the one referred to. 146 the amendment withdrew it. This was one of the few measures which in that stormy convention encountered no opposition whatever, so completely in a short time had New York City and State been convinced of the wisdom of districting. The history of districting is of importance with relation to its legality. The fact that the system has long prevailed abroad and is beginning to be adopted in this country, of itself tends to make it legal. A measure which has come to be regarded in this country as a part of proper governmental policy will not be lightly declared illegal by our courts. Freund, in his standard book ““The Police Power’’ well says that the legal decisions with re- lation to it “‘will reveal the police power not as a fixed quantity but as the expression of social, economic and political conditions. As long as these con- ditions vary, the police power will continue to be elastic, i. e., capable of de- velopment.’’? Moreover, the Supreme Court of the United States has said that the public approval of a measure is in itself a reason for holding such a measure a valid exercise of the police power.® If then the legislature of the State of Connecticut has now and long has had the right to confer districting power upon the city of Bridgeport, and has not, as we know, expressly conferred that power on her, to what extent if any has the legislature impliedly done so? Under Bridgeport’s present charter, the council has power to pass ordi- nances “‘relative to the construction and condition of buildings with reference to public or private safety;....relative to fires and the means of preventing them;....relative to the cleanliness and health of the city.’ The council also has the right to establish “‘districts’’ within which construction shall be fireproof. The charter also divides the city into two “‘districts’’, the second “‘district’’ containing the built up portion of the town. For this second ‘‘dis- trict’’ the council may pass ordinances “‘relative to any and all other subjects that shall be deemed necessary and proper for the protection and preservation of the health, property and lives of the citizens.””* It may be thought that these powers are sufficient to enable the council to establish the district system of building regulation for the entire city, so far as the police power of the state, in its narrower sense, will support such action, ‘The final form of the proposed amendment was (Print No. 501 Introductory No. 489 introduced June 9, 1915) :—‘‘Cities shall have power to establish reasonable regu- latiens and restrictions with respect to the height and use of buildings, the area of courts and yards and the location of trades and industries, the provisions of which may differ in different districts in the interest of the protection and development thereof, the maintenance of property values, or for any other public purpose."” For a report of the debate and other proceedings, see the Record and Guide, New York City, September 11, 1915, p. 430; or the stenographic record of the proceedings of the Convention, p. 4268. °2Sec. 3. See also Hurtado v. Calif. 110 U. S. 516; Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U.S. 22. It may be said in a general way that the police power extends to all the public needs. Camfield v. U. S. 167 U. S. 518. It may be put forth in aid of what is sanctioned by usage, or held by the prevailing morality or strong and preponderant opinion to be greatly and immediately necessary to the public welfare.” Mr. Justice Holmes in Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U. S. 104, at IIT. ‘Special Laws, 1907, No. 461, Sec. 2, 5, 53, 78; 1913, No. 425; 1915, Nos. 6, 233, ec. 1-3. 147 and that in the second ‘“‘district’” the council could establish the system in all its completeness. In the absence of express authority by statute, however, it would probably be unwise to attempt such action. In this country, we have been so reluctant to do many things, which a fair interpretation of implied grants would seem to authorize, that it has become unwise to rely upon any- thing but the plainest implications. In other states express statutes authorizing districting have as a rule been passed before any attempt has been made to inaugurate such a system; and it is undoubtedly safer for Bridgeport also to obtain express legislative authority for this purpose. Bridgeport has voted to draft a charter for submission to its citizens under the home rule law. Such a charter may contain for the entire city, if Bridgeport so wishes, “‘provisions. .. .for the exercise of such powers and the performance of such services as may be necessary and convenient for its wel- fare.”"! It may be asked why the city instead of obtaining further statutory authority to create building districts, should not provide for such a system in its new charter; and the answer, as before, is that instead of trusting to the implication of even such a broad general power as this, it is wiser to obtain express authority. The New York statutes authorizing New York City to introduce district- ing provide for the appointment of an unpaid citizen commission” to prepare and present to the regular authorities resolutions and plans for dividing the city into districts. The task of deciding what regulations are best suited for a particular city and what the boundaries of each district should be, affects every interest in the city. It is therefore desirable to have a commission repre- senting these interests, frame these regulations and plans and recommend them to the council; for in this way the community obtains the benefit of many points of view and at the same time a plan is prepared that is likely to be ac- ceptable to all, and to be actually adopted. Under no other method of pro- cedure would New York City have been so successful in her attempt to intro- duce this system, with all its intricacies and complications.* There is no need perhaps that the statute authorizing Bridgeport to es- tablish building districts, should provide for the appointment of a citizen com- mission to recommend the necessary ordinances and plans; for if the present city planning commission deems it wise, it can appoint such a commission to assist it and present the results, with such additions as to it seem best, to the council for final action. With the power to district given her by statute, what can Bridgeport con- servatively do to carry out Mr. Nolen’s recommendations on this subject? First: she can limit the height and area of buildings throughout the city by district regulations which may in the light of modern knowledge, opinion and practice, require a fairly large percentage of the lot for dwellings and a smaller percentage of the lot for industries and for business to be left open for light, sun and air. See p. 125. *The Commission on Building Districts and Restrictions referred to on page 145. *For the text of the statutes, see page 145. ‘For a further discussion of this point, see pp. 145 and ff. above. 148 Second: for the same reasons and also to prevent the spread of fire, she can require a reasonable space to be left between buildings. Third: she can divide the city into residential and industrial districts, excluding from the residential districts, by name or description, all industries which in the light of modern knowledge, even if not legal nuisances, are in- imical to the public health and comfort. Fourth: she can also probably exclude from her residential districts, business, with its congestion and inevitable incidental industry. This she can probably do by creating business districts from which industry is excluded.* Fifth: she can as a part of her area restrictions, require that there should be not only side, but rear building lines. It would probably be safer, and just as desirable, to create front building lines or set backs according to present practice.” Sixth: she can indirectly create certain residential districts from which all but one family houses and others from which all but one and two family houses are measurably excluded. This she can do by making such height and area requirements as will render it unprofitable, at the price of land prevailing in the district, to build anything but the desired type of residence. If the type of residence not desired is built in the district, it will at least be required to confine itself to such a height and area in proportion to the size of its lot as will remove many of its objections. Seventh: she can obviously create tenement and apartment house dis- tricts in which also one and two family houses are allowed. Eighth: If, in the opinion of the commission, the city is not ready to adopt districting by the city authorities, she can still pass an ordinance allowing the creation of districts by local option. This has been done to some extent in Canada and in this country.2- Under this system residential districts are set apart only on the petition of some fraction, such as two-thirds or three- quarters, of the land owners of the district. A district may consist of the land on one side of any street between two cross streets, as a unit, or of any ag- gregation of such units. On the presentation of a petition from such a dis- trict, the Council, if it sees fit, may vote to establish the district. The re- quirement of the vote of the Council is a safeguard against an attempt by some of the land owners of a district to do injustice to the rest;+ and may be used to prevent the establishment of residential districts in places obviously unfitted for them.® Under this system, however, it would practically be im- possible to obtain a logical, consistent districting plan of the city as a whole. Ninth: She can require “finished ends’ to houses or blocks only after having obtained statutory power from the Connecticut Legislature to pass "This is what New York City proposes to do. See Mr. Nolen’s report ch. V. p. 77. *See below, page 151. "See Report of Heights of Buildings Commission, New York 1913, p. 38 and ff. ‘On account of the opportunity of any fraction of the land owners in a district thus to be unjust to the rest, districting wholly by local option has been held to be illegal. Eubank v. Richmond, 110 Va. 749, 226, U.S. 137. *For the text of a statute establishing such a system see p. 144. 149 resolutions to promote public beauty and prevent public defacement. This power the Legislature could give Bridgeport only after an amendment of its State Constitution had been passed. Such an amendment it would be difficult to obtain. No State has as yet amended its Constitution in this way. Il. FINANCING CITY PLANNING. The needs of the modern city are many and expensive. The conse- quences of a failure to supply these needs adequately and promptly are grave. There is no phase of city planning more important than that of obtaining the necessary money for this purpose in sufficient quantities and by methods that are just and will not create hardships. 1. LOcAL ASSESSMENTS. The growth of Bridgeport so recent as to be as yet insufficiently provided for and the growth that is impending have created an imperative need for the construction of streets, the purchase of parks, the laying out of playgrounds and in fact the supply of all the public features necessary to a growing city. This the survey, in Chapter IV of Mr. Nolen’s report, of typical blocks in the east end of the city, clearly shows. Growth as Bridgeport has grown brings wealth, and the only question is how best to obtain the share of it necessary for such enterprises. Of all the methods the one of broadest application, the one that is most just and that may be applied with the least hardship is that of local or benefit assessment. Let us take up the application of this method to the construction of the many public features at present most needed by the city. Over the planning and construction of its streets, Bridgeport has under its present charter, entire control.t_ The city need have no difficulty in getting the money to build these streets; for, under the charter, the entire cost? except of sewers,*—for which, for some reason not apparent to me, the city invariably pays one-quarter of the cost—may be be assessed upon the land owners benefited by their construction, in proportion to the benefit to them.‘ It has been the city’s custom in levying special assessments not to go beyond abutters, although the charter allows it to extend them to all who are especially benefited. It may seem wise, in any new district developed at this time, to build a street, at intervals, somewhat wider than the others. In that case it may not be fair or legal, to charge the entire cost to abutters, for such a charge might be in excess of their special benefits. When such a street how- ever is constructed, there is almost invariably a considerable district, on each 1Special Laws, 1907, No. 461 (p. 493) Sec. 54, 58-77. "Ib. Sec. 61. "Ib. Sec. 64. ‘With regard to procedure in local assessment, see “The Planning of the Modern City” pp. 370 and ff. by Nelson P. Lewis (John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1916;) also an article entitled “The Assessment of Benefits and Damages in Street Proceedings,” by Herbert S. Swan, in the “American City”, for September 1916. See also “Assessments for Local Improvements” by William C. Ormund, and the discussion thereon in Proceed- ings of the Municipal Engineers of the City of New York, May 27, 1914; and Report of Secretary of Municipal Board of Manila, 1913. ; 150 side of it, which will be benefitted by it and should pay to the extent of the benefit. This is the practice in New York and other cities! and it has proved to be a wise and just way of collecting this expense.? It is in this way that as a rule, sewers are paid for in these cities; and it is the exception that local benefits do not pay the entire cost, whether of street or sewer. In order to provide for a sufficient distance between the houses on the opposite sides of any street, Bridgeport under its charter may either lay out the street of sufficient width, or make the street narrower and create building lines on one or both sides of it.? In either case the entire expense is almost in- variably borne by the land owners, the city paying nothing for the additional width. If, however, this extra width is a part of the street, it will belong to the city. The strip need not be paved, but may be left green. It need not be cared for by the city—the abutter may be allowed to use it until such a time as the city needs it. When that time comes the street may be widened at no expense to the city; whereas, if the strip, although subject to the incum- brance of a building line, were, except for this incumbrance, private property, the city would be obliged to make a payment in acquiring it. In the case there- fore, of any street which may, later, require widening, a broader street is in the end cheaper to the city than a street with a building line. Where encroachments are allowed, care should be taken that abutters should not acquire, or even think that they are acquiring, rights in the land they occupy. New York City has had her troubles from this cause. Mr. McAneny, under whose administration as President of the Borough of Manhattan en- croachments in that borough were in many cases removed and the capacity of streets to accommodate the traffic thus increased, incurred thereby at first much enmity; but soon the advantages of thus virtually widening the streets were admitted even by the owners whose encroachments were removed. Per- haps no act in Mr. McAneny’s public life has in the end proved more popular. All will recognize, in any newly developed territory, the wisdom of pro- viding at the outset, necessary open spaces, the expense of acquiring which, if delayed, becomes so many times greater. The need and the best method of providing for it, Mr. Nolen shows in his diagrams of existing park areas in the city, and of a proposed park system. Bridgeport has under its charter full authority to acquire and lay out parks. The charter also gives the city the right to assess benefits caused thereby on those who gain by them.’ This power Bridgeport has never utilized. Common observation shows, and the experience of many cities tends to confirm the fact, that as a rule the laying out of a park in a neighborhood, ‘For the facts and citation of decisions and statutes, see “Carrying out the City Plan” by Shurtleff and Olmsted, pp. 56, 83, 249; also ‘Paying the Bills for City Planning by Nelson P. Lewis, Chief Engineer of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, New York City in Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on City Planning, p. 43; and the statute suggested to accomplish the results recommended, on p. 55. "For the practice in many American Cities, see “Methods of Assessing for Street Im- provement” in the American City for November, 1914. "Special Laws, 1907, No. 461, Sec. 56 (p. 517). ‘Special Laws, Conn. 1907, No. 461. Sec. 54. ‘Ib. Sec. 61. 151 especially if the neighborhood is new and therefore more easily moulded, im- proves it and thus raises land values in it. This increase in land values is greater, it is true, in the case of land actually abutting on the park, but it is felt throughout the neighborhood. Since this is so, there is every reason why the land owners of the entire neighborhood, so far as specially benefited, should pay for it. Under such a system, since it does not necessitate any increase in city taxes or debt, parks may be obtained more easily and more quickly. The system, too, is a just one, for the expense is met by those who receive, in cash or its equivalent, the benefit of the development, instead of by those at a distance who get no such benefit. In this way Bridgeport may well lay out her small parks, which are most essential to the neighborhoods receiving the increase of population for which Bridgeport is planning; and should be able to do so at once. Under this system, too, larger parks, for which a part of the expense would, it is true, be paid by the entire city, might no doubt more easily be obtained. The method described above prevails and receives popular support in New York and many other cities.1 The most remarkable example of this policy is furnished by Kansas City. The entire city is divided into six park districts. Practically the entire expense of parks within the city is paid by these districts, the expense being assessed upon abutters and others specially benefited, in proportion to their benefits. Thus practically without expense to the city as a whole, an entire park system, extensive and beautiful, has been built up; and more wonderful still, land owners compete with one another to secure parks for which they themselves must pay.? There is no reason why the levying of special assessments should be limited as is the present practice in Bridgeport, to streets, or even to streets and parks. These are but instances of the general principle that wherever there is a benefit to a locality in excess of the benefit to the city as a whole, here See note I, p. 151; also ‘Carrying Out The City Plan’ by Shurtleff and Olmsted. Survey Associates, New York City, 1914, pp. 56-102. *“The figures given in the accompanying report are not estimates or guess work, but actual facts, which would be competent evidence before any court of record that the enhancement of values in real estate directly attributable to the influence of the park and boulevard system is far in excess of the entire cost of that system to the property owner who has paid for it, and that it has been for him a highly profitable investment. The complete understanding and appreciation of this fact is demon- strated by the constant pressure brought upon the Board of Park Commissioners by weekly delegations of property owners arguing for the extension of park and boule- vard improvements into hitherto undeveloped and unimproved sections of the city, and into the new territory acquired by the extension of the city limits, in order that the advantages of the extension of its system and the enhancement and permanency of real estate values which it invariably gives to the neighborhood property may be enjoyed in equal proportion by the residents of every section of the city.” Report of Board of Park Commissioners of Kansas City for 1910, p. 6. For de- tailed facts and figures, see pp. 12, 13. For further facts with relation to the practice and results in Kansas City and other cities, see “‘Carrying Out the City Plan,” pp. 69, and Additional facts and figures of this sort might be given indefinitely; but there can be no proof to a mathematical certainty that new parks increase land values in their neighborhood since other factors in these increases cannot be eliminated, or exactly allowed for. Manifestly, however, these facts confirm strongly the judgment of com- mon observation and common sense, that new parks, if wisely planned and located, are sufficient to add greatly to these values. 152 there should be a corresponding local assessment. On this subject, as Mr. Nelson P. Lewis the Chief Engineer of the Board of Estimate and Apportion- ment of New York City, has well said: “the principle should be invariably recognized that where there is local benefit there should be local assessment. There can be no im- provement which has been intelligently planned and executed which will not result in some local benefit, and it follows that there should always be some local assessment. No improvement, however small or however large, will be of equal benefit to the entire city, and to dis- tribute the burden of paying for it over the whole city according to taxable values is unfair in that it is not placed according to benefit.’”! One of the illustrations that Mr. Lewis takes to prove that his statement in its entirety is not too broad is that of the proposed new Court House in New York City:— “A site” he says, “‘has been selected to include a large area which will provide sites for still other public buildings, and result in the creation of a real civic center. What will be the effect upon the neighboring property of the expenditure of millions required for this site and buildings? There is abundant evidence to justify the pre- dicition that its value will be doubled, if not threbled, by the time the first building has been completed. Is it fair or just that the owners of this contiguous property should be enriched, through no action of their own, and that they should bear only the same proportion of the expense, according to their taxable values, as will those whose property is ten miles distant?” This passage is quoted because if it had been written to serve as a bit of forcible advice to Bridgeport at this time when she is planning to acquire the land for and construct her own civic and educational groups, it could not be more apt and timely. There is another illustration of the possible application of this principle so useful and so just that it should be quoted in spite of the fact that it is quite ouside present practice. I refer to the construction of local transit lines by municipalities. In this connection, the same authority says:? “The City Club of New York several years ago showed that as a result of the building of the first rapid transit subway in New York, the actual land values in those portions of upper Manhattan and the Bronx, which were most directly affected were within seven years increased $80,500,000 above the normal increase for that period. The cost of that part of the subway passing through the districts where this rise in values took place was about $13,000,000 while the cost of the entire subway from the Battery north was $43,000,000. It is quite evident that if the $13,000,000 which was spent upon that part of the subway traversing the district so notably benefited had been assessed directly upon the property, its owners would still have netted a neat profit of some $67,500,000 while had the cost of the entire subway been assessed upon the same limited district, the net profit to the *“Proceedings of Fourth Conference on City Planning,” p. 47. *Ib. p. 47. ‘Ib. p. 46; See also, with relation to this subject, Mr. Lewis's ‘‘Planning of the Modern _City,”” already cited, pp. 359 and ff. 153 land owners would have been $37,500,000. Was it quite fair that property in distant parts of the city entirely unaffected by this great project, should bear the same proportion of the burden as that which was so conspicuously advantaged ?""? It is often urged that to levy local assessments upon real estate for the entire amount of the estimated benefits of a local improvement is a hardship to many owners, and instances are cited where owners, unable to pay, have lost their property. For this reason some cities limit the amount of the assessment to a given percentage, such as 50% of the value of the property. This does not always furnish relief to the land owner, nor is it just to the other land owners whose taxes are raised by the additional burdens thus thrown on them.2, A wiser method is to make this tax payable in instalments if it exceeds some small percentage, such as 5% or even 3% of the value of the property assessed. Such provisions are now common® and could be intro- 1This statement was made by the City Club of New York in a pamphlet issued by it entitled “Building of Rapid Transit Lines in New York City by Assessment upon Property Benefitted” dated October 2, 1908. It urged an amendment to the charter of the city to authorize the construction of rapid transit lines by this method. The amendment was subsequently passed; (Laws 1909, ch. 498, Sec. 17, adding sub- section 3 to section 37 of the then Rapid Transit Act); but no use was ever made of it. ?See in this connection the articles referred to in Note I, p. 151. *The law in New York City on this subject (Charter Sec. 1019a, being, as amended, Laws, 1915, ch. 598) is as follows:— “Sec. 1019 a. Upon the application in writing of the owner of a parcel of real property affected by an unpaid assessment for a local improvement confirmed after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and eight, the amount of which exceeds three per centum of the valuation of such parcel, exclusive of improvements thereon, made in the annual assessment for the purpose of taxation in the calendar year next preceding such confirmation, the collector of assessments and arrears shall divide the assessment upon such parcel into ten parts as nearly equal as may be. One part there- of in any event shall be due and payable and in each case as many more of such parts shall be due and payable as years may have elapsed since the entry of such original as- sessment for collection. Such parts thereof with interest at the rate of seven per centum per annum on the amount of the assessment unpaid, shall be paid within ten days after such division as a condition of the extension of time and payment of the re- mainder as provided in this section. Upon payment of such parts and interest the balance of such assessments shall cease to be a lien upon such real property except as hereinafter provided; and the remaining parts shall be paid in annual instalments as herein provided. Of such instalments, the first with interest at the rate of five per cent- um thereon and on the instalments thereafter to become due, from the date of pay- ment of the parts of such assessment paid as hereinbefore provided, shall become due and payable and be a lien on the real property assessed, on the next ensuing anniver- sary of the date of entry of the assessment in the record of titles of assessments con- firmed; and one with interest at the rate of five centum per annum thereon and on the instalments thereafter to become due, shall become due and payable and be a lien up- on the real property assessed, annually thereafter. After the time therein specified for annual instalment and interest to become due, the amount of the lien thereof shall bear interest at the rate of seven per centum per annum. The instalments not due with interest at the rate of five per centum per annum to the date of payment may be paid at any time. The provisions of this act with reference to the sale of tax liens shall apply to the several unpaid instalments and the interest thereon in the same man- ner as if each instalment and the interest thereon had been imposed as an assess- ment payable in one payment, at the time such instalment became a lien. In the event of the acquisition by condemnation by the city for public purposes of any property upon which there are instalments not due, such instalments shall become due as of the date of confirmation of the report of the commissioners in the con- demnation proceedings, and shall be set off against any award that may be made for the property acquired. When an award for damage shall accrue to the same person who is or was at the time of the assessment was confirmed, liable for the assess- ment for benefit on the abutting property in the same proceeding, only the portion 154 duced in Bridgeport in the charter to be drawn under the Home Rule Act? or by statute in the present charter.* 2. THE DEBT LIMIT. (a) Its Size. It is not possible to raise by special assessment all the money necessary for the construction of the public works which a city like Bridgeport needs. While there are many ways of obtaining funds for such purpose, most of this balance is paid, sooner or later, out of the proceeds of general taxation. In order that the future may pay its share of these expenses, a part of the money should be borrowed. The correct principle is that the cost of permanent and durable improvements should be funded; but that in every case provision should be made for the payment of the cost of a public work during the period of its usefulness. It is customary to impose a debt limit upon cities, in order that they may not incur a too heavy load of indebtedness. The Connecticut Law’ provides that this indebtedness shall not in any case exceed 5% of a city’s assessed valuation, except by special statute. In most cities in the United States there is a general limit, varying all the way from 1 14% to 10%; and, without regard to this limit, indebtedness may be contracted for many purposes, or there are easy methods for increasing the general limit, or both these ways of increas- ing the total indebtedness are permitted. Probably there are very few cities where the entire indebtedness may not exceed 5% of the assessed valuation, and many where it materially exceeds 10%.* The Connecticut maximum is therefore as compared with that of other states, a small one. Bridgeport, in the charter which is being prepared under the Home Rule Act® cannot, as we have seen, provide for a debt limit greater than 5%. Certainly she should not accept a lesser one. City government today is a vast and complicated business enterprise, intimately associated in a multitude of ways with the well being of all who live or do business in the city. In all business enterprises today the usefulness and need of expensive permanent of the assessment in excess of such award may be considered in levying in instalments under the provisions of this act. Except as provided in this section, no such annual instalments shall be a lien or deemed to be an incumbrance upon the title to the real property assessed until it become due as herein provided.” The law in force in cities and villages in Illinois will be found in Jones and Adding- ton Ann. Stats. of Ill. (1913) Vol. I. Sec. 1432; the Baltimore City law, in Laws, Md. 1914, ch. 494. For more radical provisions see the Charter of Seattle (1912, pub- lished by Lowman and Hanford Co. Seattle, by authority of the City) p. 55 and ff; and the charter of Denver (1914 published by the Smith Brooks Printing Co. Denver, by authority of the City) pp. 88 and ff. See p. 125 above. lt would not be safe for the city to attempt to make assessments payable in stal- ments without statutory authority to do so. Page and Jones, Taxation by Assessment, Sec. 1085 (The W. H. Anderson Co., Cincinnati, 1909) *P. A. 1915: ch. 318. ‘For a fuller statement see “City Planning”, edited by John Nolen, p. 391. "See p. 125 above. 155 12 equipment is rapidly increasing. If, therefore, the city and its inhabitants are not to suffer in many ways, the debt limit must not be too small. All these considerations apply with special force to Bridgeport in this time of her great growth and need. The reason often given for making the debt limit small is the curbing of dishonesty and extravagance. There is always the risk of these evils; but we cannot afford on that account to deprive the city of needed powers; we must, instead, throw ourselves into city affairs and endeavor to make city govern- ment both more efficient and more honest. Faulty as it is, democracy is the best form of government we know, and local self-government is essential to it. (b) Borrowing on Local Assessments. Not all indebtedness is incurred for the purpose of obtaining durable im- provements. In every city it is customary to borrow for the purpose of meeting certain current expenses that will later be taken care of in other ways. If this is not done, delays in construction are likely to occur most costly to the city and to land owners. This is especially true with relation to the building of necessary streets, with their sewers and other accessories, so much needed in Bridgeport at this time. Without them houses cannot be built on abutting land, the owners must carry it at a heavy expense instead of selling it at a profit, and the city must lose several year’s taxes on improvements not yet built. The entire expense to the city of this construction may and should be a charge on the property improved, to be speedily repaid by the land owner. Certainly such a lien is a safe and ample security for such a loan. Not only should the city be allowed to borrow for such purposes, but the loans should be outside the debt limit. Under the Connecticut law cited above! it is only the bonded indebted- ness of a city that must not exceed 5% of its assessed valuation. By a proper provision in its charter now being drafted, Bridgeport could therefore be em- powered to contract indebtedness by other methods for temporary purposes without impairing her ability to issue bonds. Some cities have found it cheaper and easier to borrow money for short periods by the issue of short time bonds. If Bridgeport wishes to avail herself of this method, and still be able to borrow for her more permanent needs up to the 5% limit, she must obtain statutory power to do so. (c) Self-Supporting Improvements. Self-supporting enterprises should also be outside the debt limit. As soon as, for instance, a municipal electric light plant is on such a basis as permanently to be able to pay interest on the cost and a reasonable sum toward amortization and renewals, the money thus employed should no longer be regarded as a debt but recognized as an investment; and the amount *P. A. 1915. ch. 318. 156 so employed should be deducted in calculating indebtedness under the debt limit, in order that a new loan may be made to supply some other public need. This report has from time to time suggested financial powers, and others such as that of appointing a city planning commission, of excess or incidental condemnation, and of the regulation of building by districts, which would be useful to Bridgeport in her planning. Many of these powers would no doubt be helpful also to the other communities of the State. Wherever Bridgeport is obliged to obtain statutes in order to secure the power she desires, it would be well for her if possible to secure the passage of general rather than special statutes so that not only she but all the cities of the state may exercise these powers, in aid of their planning. IV. GREATER BRIDGEPORT. City planning is the guidance of the physical-development of communi- ties. Its purpose is the attainment of unity in city construction. Wherever concentration of population occurs, there will be found a network of interests, each seeking its expression in the physical life of the locality. It is the task of city planning, most essential to the good of the community, to bring these interests into harmony in the unity of the community. It is with the actual, not the legal, city that the city planner is con- cerned. When a center of population which with its suburbs and environs constitute the sociological or greater city, is split and divided by legal lines, as Bridgeport is divided, it becomes difficult if not impossible to plan any part of it wisely because it is impossible to plan it as a whole. This appears from the General Plan of the proposed Development of the City in Mr. Nolen’s re- port? which in indicating methods of relief, necessarily includes thre towns adjacent to Bridgeport on the east and west. It is to a consideration of the legal remedy for these evils that the remainder of this report will be de- voted. The population of Bridgeport has been for some time overflowing into contiguous towns. With Bridgeport’s great increase in population this will occur more and more. Already the solidly built up city extends for some distance into the towns of Fairfield, Stratford and Trumbull. Over the planning of the streets in these contiguous towns, Bridgeport has no control. There is no way in which Bridgeport can secure in these towns a correspondence to her own street system. Those who live in neighboring parts of these towns, however, are practically citizens of Bridgeport, where most of them work and resort for amusement; but for the use of Bridgeport’s e In New York City indebtedness for rapid transit and dock investments is thus excluded. See Constitution, Art. 8, Sec. 10, as amended January, 1910; also In re. Debt Limit of City of New York, 123 N. Y. Sup. 860. *No. 59. 157 facilities, created at great cost, they pay Bridgeport no taxes. Nor can Bridgeport enforce housing or building regulations outside her own boundaries. If, therefore, she enacts adequate districting regulations within her own limits, she will be met with the unfair competition of lower standards in these towns. Ultimately Bridgeport will accept streets and buildings in the planning of which she has had no control. Bridgeport has never adequately developed her port. One reason is that part of it is in the town of Stratford, and Stratford cannot do her share. Bridgeport has not placed her industries most advantageously for their interests and her own. The reason is that these industries, should be situated, more and more, on the harbor or those parts of it where land for manufactur- ing is cheap, where shipping facilities might be admirable and where land for workingmen’s houses is near and abundant at reasonable prices. Such an arrangement would give Bridgeport all the advantages of her industries with- out the congestion that they are now creating; but this arrangement Bridge- port cannot render feasible by harbor developments in the town of Stratford. Bridgeport needs additional parks. Especially desirable, as Mr. Nolen has shown,! is a municipal forest reservation. The land suitable for this use, near, cheap and abundant, is outside Bridgeport’s legal limits. It is impossible, so long as this land is beyond Bridgeport’s boundaries, for her to acquire and improve parks and forest reservations by local assessment; or protect them by excess condemnation; or obtain the results from the increase in tax- able values caused by them; or administer them advantageously and eco- nomically. Bridgeport is in urgent need of cheap, healthful, pleasant homes for her people. Nothing else would so preserve the gravely threatened health and vitality of her people, or so ensure the lasting success of her industries and the permanence of her phenomenal growth. If the city had the land near but rendered inaccessible by the legal boundary, she could afford to encourage transit facilities to this land, paying for them by local assessment, excess con- demnation—or if these methods still seem too radical, receiving as a sufficient recompense the resulting increase of taxable land values and of genera) prosperity. All this it is difficult to do because the land for this housing is in another jurisdiction. There is more than one way of meeting the difficulties that have just been pointed out. Statutes in some states give a city control of street platting a certain distance, beyond its borders;? joint boards administer common har- bors; park districts embracing a city and its environs, assess the cost of parks equitably, and administer them with success. In time, the private speculator, largely for the benefit of another town and for his own profit, will inadequately and expensively, develop a housing area near Bridgeport, plan it to suit his fancy, and provide transit to it. All these methods, however, are more cumberous, more expensive and less satisfactory for many reasons than the In chapter VI. See also maps No. 38 and 39. *For the text of such a statute, see note 3, p. 130, above. 158 annexation of the territory to be controlled. There is no legal difficulty in such an annexation,—the state legislature can accomplish this result by passing a statute in the usual method. With an equity so great and so easily proved, there ought to be no practical difficulty in obtaining the enactment of such a statute. The state, too, would benefit by the prosperity of Bridgeport and the development of her resources upon a sound and enduring basis. Respectfully submitted, FRANK BACKUS WILLIAMS, 159 : (GENERAL CITY PLAN OF BRIDGEPORT SHQWING CONDITIONS, CHANGES AND NEW PLANNING WITHIN PRESENT CITY LINES uw ' = 4 SSS GC = = —————_—_ a o 3 4/4 < yy \* p ‘H. LA ee YN. e a PROPOSED IMPROWEMENTS Y » is S iS Y Ranier » R88 Stk es Sf Be a ete S 38 Oe Norge Ste ; a ey Bes aoe 8 Riss Seige Se See SPOE SSR PSR a CER E Te Sek SSE LSE Se SS BLS Se | COMES EARS SE VSG SRL SEKTS BOK S gh EROS SS SRCT IS ROTA LO ON CRESS BOAT EAA LK Ki & ORY S Ps >: yixds Oe RG SMSF ELIS SES HESS SLKKEG EEE oF SVE ssc eye esd HVS R995 SS SGX SPE LF VGsoeyay BREE LS COWELR EG NR ae PERLE S I HGRE BNO oD ES LES HSL GS ESN IIL Isl Ix so 8 BSS Sy EWEe os SBC AG EG HS SATS LLL G GSR IE GE NYBERG LG LF§N SAMMPHONDH QSVOVOGS VAL HVA AK LK AASsAgag gs: Ot f SL OCOK LITA | = 43 Ceder Creek Playgrovnd 44 Seaside Hlaygrd0n fuisting Stree7s iz, ZO ———— = oposea fi UY, Peblre Property Sem/-Publhic Property We Sen E ~ a , CEE Goda ise A ——— go, ‘Y x See Sg 1E =< OTM LLG COVE re é ; a 2 | \ oN ; I }) “ oy ip hae Charles D. Doavis-Chairmar: } , Bishop frederick Cederho/m Ceor. , Lames i e Bie . Lashor ter C7 SE Yj LE yp Wt (GY Z [ILE~ Ei; CONNECTICUT | GENERAL - CITY: PLAN | Showing Conditions, Nees and New s Manning Within presen City Lines JOHN NOLEN CITY PLANNER ; CAMBRIDGE MAss. ID1S5 PLAN- N°? /0/ a Nea ‘apace hear erinl ren’ Sits cd Slee satay SRE ie rhasmeiety os a eo Sac it Reel eae Gi rae becihaas Piseacurtn Nee a m3 is ae see Paes STATS vier ne es A ee raisist aie fi Heat , ann aNd 0 reer rites beget siti ay Gs hi tty) HY aid Ld ek A Li petels Per ai es Tce At BOSC at) A c\ erotica nen are! ei Mt f Lari h pa ¥ Hea Oe: CH Bl ae al oe Tarte re Peery) poe pater este : P i Uae ORME OLE ae a S ge ANE Pl eH tiie ros honed heheh esas FR ROL C Harper it i Pot ran ins Hetero de Oa ih EMC ws oe a rH 5 st Cn Da) ” ike RPO or San a ict tenliias OO us oi reir « Petra DI A C % Wit bi oo 0 i o Pore nes re i Pe area kyu Mi Sew