The Prevention of Fire in Boston Report of the Committee on Fire Prevention of the Boston Chamber of Commerce Boston, Mass. September, 1911 INTRODUCTORY NOTE. ■ The Committee on Fire Prevention of the Boston Chamber of Commerce was appointed August 25th, 1910, with instructions to prepare and submit to the Board of Directors a report on condi¬ tions in Boston relating to fire hazard and losses, with recommen¬ dations as to the best method to follow in improving these con¬ ditions. ; I A! #1 In carrying out these instructions, the committee has conferred with a number of persons qualified to advise in reference to the various phases of the question—representatives of the Boston Board of Fire Underwriters, Associated Factory Mutual Insur¬ ance Company and of the Boston Finance Commission, members of the Fire (Hazard Commission appointed by the Mayor of Boston, with the Building Commissioner, the Fire Com¬ missioner, and others. The committee has also studied the reports of various insurance companies, national and local boards of fire underwriters, the Fire Protective Association, state commissions, the Geological Survey, and others. Figures compiled from these reports appear in the appendices. ZO%10 6 EXISTING CONDITIONS. It is a remarkable feature of American civilization that the loss of property due to fire in the United States is $250,000,000 a year, about $2.50 for every man, woman and child in the country. This is seven times the average per capita loss in European coun¬ tries. It amounts to one-fourth as much as the value of new construction. We burn down quarter as much as we build up. Not less remarkable is the complacency with which the public views this destruction. Even though the seriousness of the situ¬ ation is repeatedly brought to the attention of the public by the daily press and by reports of insurance organizations, the average citizen seems well content to let things go on as they are, without making any move toward improvement. It is hard to understand how this attitude can prevail, when it is so clear to one who devotes a moment’s thought, that the fire waste is a real and irretrievable loss, the destruction ot ^.*operty reducing by just so much the aggregate wealth of the community. This loss falls upon every member of the community in the form of increased taxes, increased insurance rates, increased cost of build¬ ing materials, increased rent, and, sooner or later, may fall upon * any one in the more obvious form of direct personal loss due to a fire in his own home or place of business. Furthermore, the money loss by no means represents the real cost of fire. The consequential loss due to sacrifice of lives, dam¬ age to business and homes, interruption of employment for many persons, and to general derangement of civic functions is so large that one dare not try to estimate it. It surely represents several times the actual property loss, thus carrying the total cost of fire into the billions. The comparison of per capita losses in this country and Eu¬ rope, as shown in Appendix I.—$2.50 in the United States, 33 cents in Europe—is- so startling that it suggests a study of the rela¬ tive conditions to see if the methods 'which prevail in foreign coun¬ tries could be introduced here. An investigation of foreign condi¬ tions as compared with those in this country brings out that: '\ The building construction is much better on the average, and in some cities practically all buildings are of fireproof construction. Building laws are more rigidly enforced, and frequent in¬ spections are made. A well organized fire marshal system exists in practically every city, and the causes of all fires are investigated. A fire is considered a crime and the guilty punished, resulting in much greater individual responsibility. The fire departments in foreign countries are certainly no bet¬ ter than ours, and probably on the average not as good. The pre¬ ventive measures mentioned above are the fundamental reasons for freedom from fire waste. In foreign countries conflagrations are practically unknown, while in this country they are very common. The reason for this condition is, of course, the large amount of wood construction used in this country. . Even in our large cities where fireproof buildings have become general, there are still in existence groups of buildings which on the interior are largely constructed of wood. These so-called second class buildings make possible a conflagra¬ tion at any time. Such a holocaust as has been experienced by Elizabeth, Chelsea, Baltimore, San Francisco, Portland, and Bangor may be expected in Boston at any time. The number of deaths due to fire is also out of all reasonable proportion in this country, over 6000 people having lost their lives in one year. The loss of life in foreign countries is small. All rules and regulations which tend toward the reduction of fire waste will, of course, reduce this loss of life. Recent experiences in this country, particularly the fire of April 7th, 1911, New York City, show an utter disregard for law and reasonable conditions of safety. Further, it is important to realize that in this country in manu¬ facturing buildings which are insured in the mutual companies pre¬ ventive measures have been introduced most successfully, and that . - ^ - 6 . .... the loss by fire in this field is reduced to a remarkably low point. Some figures have been compiled in this connection and are given in Appendix II. This is a very important consideration, since it is practically conclusive proof that fire waste in this country can be reduced, provided the proper regulations are enforced. The reduction of fire losses will mean not only a direct saving of property and life, but a corresponding reduction in the cost of insurance to every policy holder. In order to prevent a loss by fire from falling upon one individual the present system of fire insurance has been developed, through which a tax in the form of premiums is levied and a fund established to reimburse the individual sufferer. It is evident that the amount of this premium must be proportional to the total fire loss, and must in addition cover the cost of services and guarantee of the insurance companies. Each individual thus feels the fire loss directly through the amount of his insurance prem¬ iums. Reliable statistics regarding the profits of insurance com¬ panies bear out the fact that no reduction in the average premium can be expected without a reduction in the fire loss. (See Apoen- dix III.) RECOMMENDATIONS. This Committee, after giving consideration to the above facts regarding fire waste, submits the following recommendations: I. To reduce the construction hazard :— (a) The enactment of city ordinances which shall prohibit the construction of any third class building within the city lim¬ its. (b) The enactment of a law prohibiting the construction of any but fireproof buildings within the congested business district of the city.* (c) The passage of a law requiring all second or third class buildings now existing within the congested business dis¬ trict of the city to be equipped with sprinkler service, ex¬ cept that houses for habitation not used in any portion for any other purpose need not be so equipped, and that hotels and *For definition of “congested district” see draft of proposed law in Appendix X. 7 I lodging houses need be so equipped only in the basement, first story and public halls, dining rooms or assembly rooms.'"' 2 To prevent carelessness or deliberate mismanagement :— ■ (a) The passage of a law creating a Fire Bureau empow¬ ered to examine into every fire and make a published report thereon, giving in deta^’ ^he cause of the fire and locating the exact responsibility in much the same manner as the coroner’s jury investigates a crime. (b) The passage of a law regulating the issuing of fire insurance covering any building previous to approval by formal act of said Fire Bureau. 3* To improve the efficiency of the fire-fighting systems :— (a) The installation of a high pressure fire service car¬ ried through the streets of the congested portion of the city.t (b) Doing away, as rapidly as conditions will permit, with the obsolete and cumbersome system of portable engines and machinery operated by horses, and the substitution of self- propelled fire apparatus. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS We offer the following reasons for our recommendations: Third Class Structures Third class structures are now prohibited within what is known as the building limits, including the central business portion of the city.$ ^According to the building law a first class building is one wholly of fireproof construction; a second class building is one of which the exterior is wholly of non-combustible material, while a third class building is one constructed within and without, wholly or in part, of wood. tThis the committee previously recommended, and the city has accepted chapter 312 of the Acts of 1911, providing for such a serv¬ ice.. For copy of law, see Appendix I'V. tFor existing ordinances in Boston and other cities, see Ap¬ pendices V and VI. 8 The fire loss in third class buildings throughout the outlying districts of the city is admittedly very light,* but the danger from these is not merely that they shall burn themselves but that by burning they shall communicate fire to their neighbors. The busi¬ ness districts are constantly encroaching on the residential and the most dangerous zones are in the fringe between the thickly built districts and the residential. It is more than likely that we may have a most disastrous conflagration in the Dorchester and Roxbury districts which are built up almost entirely of cheap wooden apart¬ ments, placed very close to one another in continuous blocks. Not¬ withstanding the menace they are to the city, we cannot obliterate these structures, but we can prohibit the building of any new dis¬ tricts of the same sort, and can provide that as the city pushes towards the suburbs it will not be faced with such conditions as now exist in the thickly settled region to the south and west. The Mayor and the Fire Commissioner of Boston both favor an extension of the building limits, within which wooden buildipgs are prohibited. This committee believes that such extension should include the entire city of Boston. The objection which has been made to any such extension comes from the owners or representa¬ tives of land in the outlying sections which are now regarded as available for the erection of the cheap type of three-story wooden tenement houses, and from the dealers in materials used in the cheaper forms of construction. Opposition is made on the ground that it will be a great hardship to the owners of land and to the tenants who would occupy the buildings to compel the expenditure of a larger amount of money in construction, with a consequent in¬ crease in the rate of rental. This committee has carefully exam¬ ined the merits of these arguments, and has found that the addi¬ tional cost of construction of second class buildings which would meet the requirements is so small that owners could well afiford to lease them at the same rental as the cheaper buildings command, because of the savipg in the cost of maintenance and repairs. Sev¬ eral methods of stucco, concrete and brick construction have been suggested. A set of house plans of a building which has actually been erected was submitted to five different contractors and their estimates have been averaged for purpose of comparison. These Vv’ere published in the March issue of the Brickbuilder (a trade jour¬ nal) and are reproduced in Appendix VII. The average estimate for 9 a frame building, covered with clapboards, was $6759.95. average increase in cost for other types was as follows: Second Class Construction. Stucco on frame . 2.92 percent Brick veneer on studding ... 5.83 ” Stucco on hollow block. 6.34 ” Brick veneer on boarding. 6.95 ’’ Ten inch brick wall—hollow. 9.16 “ Brick veneer on hollow block.iO -77 ” The owners of a special form of poured concrete construction state that by their method a six room house has been built at ap¬ proximately the same cost as for the cheapest frame construction and that the cost is about 15 percent less than if constructed with brick walls. By comparison of the figures given here and in Appendix VII, it will be seen that the cost of a second class building need not be more than 15 percent above the cost of a third class structure. We have obtained expert opinions on this subject and are convinced that these approximations are fairly correct. Furthermore, taking into account the life of a third class building as compared to that of a second class building and comparing the amounts which must be charged off every^ year for painting, repairs and depreciation, in the course of twenty years, the second class building would repre¬ sent a yearly cost materially less than that of a third class building.. It is difficult to give exact figures representing this saving, as con¬ ditions vary so widely, but in Appendix VIII are given some com¬ parisons which are suggestive. It is therefore the confident belief of this committee that the suggested prohibition of third class buildings will create no real hardship upon owners or lessees of property. In an address delivered by Mr. Frank Lock in 1909, copy of which has been furnished to the committee, much stress is laid upon the various causes of fire waste, the use of wood in outside con¬ struction and particularly upon roofs as being one of the principal causes. In this address, it is stated that 27 percent of fire losses are due to exposure—that is the spreading of fire from one build¬ ing to another. If, therefore, it is possible to reduce the danger of such spreading, the public interests will be greatly served. This- we believe can be done by the extension of the building limits, as proposed. 10 First Class Buildings in Congested District In regard to first class buildings in the congested district, this committee is willing to admit that looked at merely as a matter of first investment, first class construction throughout would appear expensive. But in a city like Boston the desire of the individual to reap a large return on his investment ought to be subordinated to the rights of the city as a whole. Every great fire of the past has shown the value of fireproof buildings to stop, or at least limit, a conflagration. No structure is absolutely fireproof, but every fire has shov^m that it is perfectly practicable to build a structure which cannot be ruined even by the fiercest fire, which is seldom more than superficially damaged, and whose efficiency as a fire check has been thoroughly demonstrated. So that, while the in¬ sistence upon nothing but first class construction in the congested district may be regarded by some as a hardship, taking the city as a whole it would be a decided economy for the community by vast¬ ly reducing the number and extent of fires. Sprinklers in Existing Second Class Buildings Those citizens who now have dangerous buildings ought to bear the burden of increased cost rather than their neighbors who have safer buildipgs, on which • the insurance rates are vastly increased because the others will not take proper precaution against the spread of fire. The recommendation that existing second class buildings be equipped with sprinklers comes as a natural corollary. We can¬ not get full benefit of the conflagration stop afforded by a first class building if the neighboring buildings remain a positive menace. We cannot compel the removal of such structures, but we can at least make them/ fairly safe. Nor does this entail a real hardship on the owners of such property, as it effects a yearly saving in insur¬ ance premiums sufficient to pay the cost of the sprinklers in a very few years. See Appendix IX. Establishment of a Fire Bureau There is no one body at the present time which is able to in¬ vestigate properly the causes of and to fix the responsibility for fires,, as would be a Fire Bureau constituted as we have indicated. We know of no way so thoroughly to arouse public and individual ap¬ preciation of the gravity of the situation, or so thoroughly to em¬ phasize the fact that the great majority of fires are due in the last analysis to entirely preventable carelessness, often criminal in the II extreme, as to fix definitely the responsibility and give fullest pub¬ licity to every fire—not merely by perfunctory reports in public documents, but by statements, of facts, names and findings in the daily papers, as well as by recommendations to the proper law of¬ ficers for prosecution of ofifenders. By this means the utmost pub¬ licity would be given to carelessness or criminal negligence. The Bureau would also be charged with the duty of preparing and publishing regulations which would minimize the effects of careless¬ ness, provide for safety of life, and for educating the public in the simpler facts and methods of fire protection. Insurance Upon Buildings Not Approved. The principle of prohibiting the placing of insurance upon buildings not formally approved is not an innovation. An exactly similar procedure is followed now in the use of gas, electricity, boil¬ ers and elevators. Neither the gas company nor the electric light company is allowed to supply any gas or current until the installa¬ tion has been approved by a formal certificate from the proper au¬ thority. A company which insures a boiler not up to stand¬ ard is liable to lose its license to do business. No elevator can be operated until it is inspected and approved. Let us apply the same principle to protection against fire, and prohibit insurance unless the building is approved. This does not mean that a mere technical defect or violation would make the building uninsurable, but simply that it must pass under the Fire Bureau’s supervision before the owner can purchase indemnity by securing an insurance policy. Un¬ der existing conditions any kind of building can be insured at a price, no matter how flagrantly it violates the laws and common prudence. If the owners of such property appreciated that they could not thus protect themselves they would be very likely to put their premises in proper order. High, Pressure Fire Service A report has recently been issued by the National Board of Fire Underwriters on “The Desirability of a High Pressure Fire Sys¬ tem in the City of Boston.” It emphasizes the fact that in the business district which is the fourth largest district in point of val¬ ue in the country, there exist conditions which may breed a con¬ flagration at any time. It states, “There are large-area blocks, with crowded and poorly accessible interiors, no floor-opening or window protection where especially needed and numerous large 12 floor areas, affording opportunity for the rapid spread of fire. The narrow streets in this district are of little value in preventing the spread of fire.” In addition to the reasons set forth in the report of the National Board of Fire Underwriters, the Committee favors the installa¬ tion of the high pressure service on the ground that the present financial condition of the city would justify the expenditure neces¬ sary for the installation of this system. Furthermore, the insurance companies, for the first time, are willing to promise a definite re¬ duction in the insurance rates estimated at between $100,000 and $125,000. See Appendix XL The experience of cities where a high pressure service has been installed illustrates the possibilities and advantages of such equip¬ ments. Philadelphia has used its system for nearly eight years, and New York its system for three years. The superiority of the high pressure service over the use of fire engines has been amply demonstrated. Adoption of Self-Propelled Fire Apparatus The wisdom of adopting self-propelled fire apparatus has been demonstrated wherever it has been done. We advise that as the present machines wear out they be replaced by self-propelled ap¬ paratus, for the simple reason that such would be more readily avail¬ able, more easily controlled, more powerful, require less space for housing, and cost less to operate. For a brief study of the Bos¬ ton Fire Department see Appendix XII. Conclusion No one can reasonably question the desirability of our recom¬ mendations from) the point of view of the prevention of fire. Fur¬ thermore, measured by the financial standard the acceptance of the high pressure system as provided by Chapter 312 of the Acts of 1911 means a saving of at least $100,000 a year, in insurance premiums alone. The actual possible saving beyond this is altogether prob¬ lematic in amount, but if, by,virtue of the saving in the construc¬ tion hazard we reduce the annual fire loss only to that of the best average cited for any American city (Philadelphia) we would save $2.14 per capita ($3.60 less $1.46) or over one and one-quarter million dollars per year in Boston alone. And if by using the best endeavors of the Fire Bureau as outlined in this report, eliminating even a measure of carelessness, we succeed still further in cutting 13 down our annual fire loss of $3.60 to only twice the per capita loss in Germany, 49 cents, our average loss would then be 98 cents per capita, a saving of $1,834,000 per year on a population of 700,000. We make no specific recommendation in regard to amend¬ ments of the building laws as such. Many suggestions for such amendments have been made to us and there are undoubtedly many improvements possible, but there are several committees and com¬ missions which are giving most careful study to this subject and we feel there is no call for action of this detailed kind by this commit¬ tee. Such action would only complicate a situation which is al¬ ready enough confused. We feel that the best way to meet the situation as far as the Boston Chamber of Commerce is concerned is for this committee to limit its recommendations to a minimum num¬ ber of absolutely necessary, broad, fundamental requirements. If these can be put in force, minor changes in the building and fire laws would naturally and easily follow. Without the essential changes recommended any tinkering with existing laws would fail to give relief. Respectfully submitted, COMMITTEE ON FIRE PREVENTION, Clarence H'. Blackall, Chairman, Edward D. Densmore, John B, Graham, Patrick A. O’Connell, Leslie C. Wead, Robert S. Coffin, Secretary. 14 . Appendices APPENDIX L PART I.—STATISTICS OF FIRE LOSSES IN UNITED STATES. Table I.—Annual Fire Losses in the United States for Thirty-six Years— 1875-1910 Inclusive. (Statistics gathered by the National Board of Fire Underwriters.) Aggregate Property Year. Loss. 1875 .? 78,102,285 187G 64,630,600 1877 68,265,800 1878 64,315,900 1879 77,703,700 1880 74,643,400 1881 81,280,900 1882 84,505,024 1883 100,149,228 1884 . 110,008,611 1885 102,818,796 1886 104,924,750 1887 120,283,055 1888 110,885,665 1889 .; . 123,046,833 1890 108,993,792 1891 143,764,967 1892 151,516,098 Aggregate Property Year. Loss. 1893 .,.$167,544,370 1894 . 140,006,484 1895 . 142,110,233 1896 . 118,737,420 1897 . 116,354,575 1898 . 130,593,905 1899 . 153,597,830 1900 . 160,929,805 1901 . 165,817,810 1902 . 161,078,040 1903 . 145,302,155 1904 . 229,198,050 1905 . 165,221,650 1906 . 518,611,800 1907 . 215,084,709 1908 . 217,885,850 1909 . 188,705,150 1910 . 214,003,300 Table 2.—Conflagrations Involving Losses of $500,000 And Over Occurring In 1910. (Statistics gathered by the National Board of Fire Underwriters.) February 4 New York City, N. Y., Med. Supply, U. S. A. Dept.$ l6 500,000 March April May June July August October November December 22 Pueblo, Colo., Minnequa Plant of Colo. Fuel and Iron Co., Pattern Storehouses . 600,009 5 Winlock, Wash., Business Portion of Town.. 650,000 24 Hambleton, W. Va., Tannery . 800,000 26 Phila., Pa., Oil Warehouse, Mantel Factory and Lumber Yard and Mill . 600,000 3 Omaha, Neb., Central Gr. Elev. of Nye- Schneider Fowler Co., Manly Milling Co., and Box Cars . 600,000 9 Beaver Falls, Pa., Union Drawn Steel Acme Mfg. Co. Plants and Acme Typewriter Mfg. Co. 500,000 27 St. Louis, Mo, Brewery Plant of Anheuser- Busch Brewing Association . 530,000 2 Ford City, Pa., Pittsburgh Plate Glass . 4 Kansas City, Kan., Peet Bros. Mfg. Co., Soap and Glycerine Plant . 1,500,000 22 Elkhart, Ind., C. G. Conn, Band Instrument Factory . 500,000 25 Bluff Point, N. Y., Hotel Champlain. 500,000 28 Minneapolis, Minn., Implement Warehouses 750,000 27 Paterson, N. J., Van Dyke Furniture Store and others . 502,000 Marinette, Wis., Timber Lands and Saw Mills 1,200,000 16 New York City, S. S. Pier and Freight (Met. S. S. Co.) . 750,000 Lakeview, Ill., Grain Elev. and Brewery_ 600,000 18 Wallace, Idaho, Half the Town . 1,000,000 9 Boston, Mass., Blacker & Shepard Lumber Yards and others . 600,000 17 Jersey City, N. J., Truslow & Fulle Cork Wks., and oth^s . 700,000 24 Stevenson, Wash., Saw Mill and Standing Timber . 600,000 18 James City, Pa., American Plate Glass Wks. 500,000 20 E. St. Louis, Ill., Chicago & Alton R. R. Freight House and others. 500,000 25 Superior, Wis., Coal Shed and Wharf. 500,000 29 Topeka, Kans., Storage Yards of Atchison, Topeka & Kansas R. R. 500,000 30 Omaha, Neb., Creamery and Cold Storage (Plant of Fairmount Creamery Co.) . 600,000 3 Phila., Pa., Cunningham Supply Co., Bldg., Block and Storage Warehouse. 500,000 27 Livingstone, Ala., Sumter Lumber Plant ... 500,000 6 Evansville, Ind., H. Feurich, Cig. Fcty. and others . 750,000 21 Cincinnati, O., Kippendorf & O’Neil, Shoe Fcty. and Leather Works . 1,750,000 22 Chicago, Ill., Morris & Co., Meat Pckg. Plants 1,000,000 Total .? 22,582,000 Conflagrations prior to 1910 since 1866 983,234.135 Total for period 17 $1,00'5,816,135 Table 3.—Statistics of Fires in the Ten Largest American Cities, According to Population. 1910. -Fires- Loss, Insured and Uninsured Loss per Capita Total 50 CO o 50 uo 35 rc 50 i—i t- •«o CO pH rH cq 00 I—i 00 pH S/S- cg iH 1—I lO iH I—1 iH eg cq 1—1 CO uo o cq CO t- CO TC lO CO t- o rH rH to LO o t- 50 o CO C0_^ o eg eg o rf iH co" oo" lO r-T CO eg" 35 ccT 35 00 LCO UO 35 eg t- C- lO o uo rH CO c- 35 o 35 00 CO*' eg rH TO iH Contents Buildings 35 LO CD eg eg LO 35 rH rH CO LO 35 to CO LO ^ to' t- 00 00 eg eg LO rH CO LO c- rH CO LO LO eg eg LO CO LO c- 35 CO t— eg CO 35 CO oo" e^ CO eg 05 t— 00 o eg CO tH CO iH Extending beyond Adjoining Buildings t- O iH tH (M LO Extending to Adjoining Buildings Only . Confined to fioor . Confined to building o.r place of origin Total Number of Fires . Population. Area, Square Miles. City l8 CO OO t>- eg Tf CO 05 eg eg t>. eg eg eo o tH o LO eo r—I CO Oi O OO —T CO 03 a 3 O' i=! 03 eg 35 eg CO CO CO Tl-i H CO rH rH rH (d +j p*^ • « • -(-> • • • • • (d dl 'd d • • ^ * d ;h • • • • (d d • • • • • • -i-> • • be d d * d • • • • • • • • bfl ^ • 3 13 'O 03 • 1—1 d 0 • • d d 03 0 d • • b/3 • • 5.1^ 0 • pH nd d P-H 0 03 0 • P^ U2 cd 1 ^ •pH rd 0 -4-> 03 0 13 > 03 t-H d p^ m 4-> •pH 2 ^ ^ Cl«J 0) d d t-H * • pH -M c3 m Ph pq 0 pq pqQpq \ Loss per Capita > ’w 3 -O 1 ^ •“ S Total .S ° s o o O) £ O J 5 3 Q. O 0. £) £ -a I- o u o < 4) 3 ) ,;r 4> > < £ <0 ns ns •— 02 02 Sh 0) E c < 4> 0) D) i- ns -1 £ 0) h o -£ (0 a> SSOiH^^DOOaO-^rHt^- CO ?0 Irt 00 05 :D !M cIM UO-^^OSrtiC^OOOOosrH t>.C0S^t>"O5|55C^.^C. C50 oo CO 00 ”^T-I 1^- OO cvq 05 t- to CO to (Cd C< £ 3 3 3 05 to lO lO CO ?q 00 05 to pH r}^ t—i to CO 05 rjH 05 o t- I—1 -t0t>- t^rHO'-.'t't-OOOCOlO to CO io CO CO CO^ O LO CO (C- 00 00^ CO CC> to to to CO co CO pH •n tH X to 05 05 O to CO o CO to to cq OS fH Ip tp CO o cq" cq cq 05 cq to CO cq CO Hhi CO Hfl CO rH pH V) o (0 (0 Xf) i S City SI ns J“ £ o 02 oS • rH ,£ G P •rH ‘fH 35 Si 02 3 O h:i ■3 3 02 > 02 O Sh 2 3 -HJ ■-^3 “ ^ 3 02 3 ?3 3 ^oPLHMpqom^Qm *• IQ lyear; x2 years; xx 3 years; ** 5 years; a 6 years; 1)7 years; c8 years; d9 years. Statistics gathered by the National Board of Fire Underwriters. PART II.-—COMPARISON OF FIRE LOSSES IN AMERICA AND EUROPE. Table I.—Fire Losses In Six European Countries. (Statistics gathered by the National Board of Fire Underwriters.) Annual Popula- Loss per Country Years. Average. tion, 1901. capita. Austria . 1898-1902 $ 7,601,389 26,150,597 $0.29 Denmark . 1901 &60,924 2,588,919 .26 France . 190'(hl904 11,699,275 38,595,500 .30 Germany . 1902 27,655,600 56,367,178 .49 Italy . 1901-1904 4,112,725 32,449,754 .12 Switzerland . 1901-1903 999,364 3,325,023 .30 Average loss per capita .... 33 cents. Table 2.—Per Capita Fire Losses in 1907 in American and European Cities, Classified According to Population. (Statistics for the United States gathered by the Geological Survey and for Europe by the Bureau of Manufactures.) Population. United States Europe. Over 300,000 . ... $2.24 $0.65 100,000 to 300,000 .. .. . 2.14 .37 50,000 to 100,000 ... ... 2.47 1.67 30,000 to 50,000 . ... 3.28 .72 10,000 to 30,000 .... ... 2.37 .81 Under 10,000 . ... 3.47 • • • » Fire Losses In America and European Countries, 1910. (Statistics gathered by the National Board of Fire Underwriters.) Numb€;r of Cities Report- Popula- Per Capita ing Loss. tion. Loss. United States .. . 297 29,996,723 $2.39 England . . 11 2,335,847 .44 France . . 8 4,392,529 .92 Germany . . 13 5,616,822 .19 Ireland . . 2 657,680 .45 Norway .. . 1 244,000 .25 Table 3.— Fire Losses in America and in European Cities of Th® Same Size. (Statistics gathered by Geological Survey and Bureau of Manufactures. Each of the Foreign Cities Is Compared With the American City Marked by the Same Numeral.) European Losses for 1904. City. Population. Fire Loss. Loss per capita. 1 Paris, France . ... 2,714,500 $1,266,282 $0.47 2 Frankfort, Germany .. . .. 324,500 99,492 .31 3 St. Petersburg, Russia .. . 1,500,000 2,128,541 1.42 4 Birmingham, England . ... 550,000 226,506 .41 5 Sheffield, England. . . . 426,686 75,989 .13 6 Toulon, France . ... 101,602 55,391 .55 20 ‘ 7 Bremen, Germany 203,847 78,372 .38 8 Molenback, Belgium . 63,678 106,150 1.67 9 Lalken, Belgium . 31,121 22,349 .72 10 Etterbeck, Belgium . 23,992 19,504 .81 United States Losses for 1907. 1 Chicago, Ill, . 2,049,185 $3,937,105 $1.43 2 Cincinnati, Ohio . 345,230 1,971,217 5.70 3 Philadelphia, Pa. 1,441,735 2,093,522 1.45 4 Baltimore, Md. . .. 553,669 916,603 1.66 5 Cleveland, Ohio .. 460,000 515,194 1.12 6 Atlanta, Ga. 104,984 225,237 2.15 7 St. Paul, Minn. .. 204,000 522,447 2.56 8 Evansville, Ind. .. 63,957 196,702 3.08 9 Oskosh, Wis. 31,033 80,500 2.59 10 Easton, Pa. 25,238 33,073 1.27 PART ML—STATISTICS OF FIRE LOSSES IN BOSTON. Table 1.—Statement of Fire Losses In Boston For Past Ten Years. (Report of Boston Fire Department.) Year ending February 1, 1901 .$1,702,217 ff 99 99 1, 1902 1,830,719 9f 99 ^9 1, 1903 1,762,619 99 99 99 1, 1904 1,674,333 99 99 99 1, 1905 2,473,980 99 99 99 1 , 1906 2,130,146 99 99 99 1 , 1907 1,130,334 99 99 99 1 , 1908 2,268,074 99 99 99 1 , 1909 . .3,610,000 99 >9 1 , 1910 1,680,245 21 APPENDIX 11 . RESULTS OBTAINED IN THE UNITED STATES BY THE ASSOCIATED FACTORY MUTUAL COMPANIES. It has been suggested in the report that introduction of certain preventive measures might reduce the fire loss in the United States. In this connection it is interesting to note the results which have been obtained in the United States by the Associated Factory Mutual Companies. The basis of business in the mutual companies is as follows: Each person who^ insures agrees ta certain rules and regulations, and accepts his insurance at a cer¬ tain fixed rate. At the end of the year a rebate is given from this rate, depending upon the extent of the losses which have oc¬ curred. If there have been few fires a large rebate results. The reason for insuring in the mutual companies is to obtain a low rate of insurance and also freedom from fires. The mutual companies,, however, insist upon certain rules and regulations regarding con¬ struction, protection and maintenance of equipment, which are in accordance with the best known methods of fire protection. The fundamental principle of the mutual companies’ protection is the use of automatic sprinklers. A careful system of inspection is maintained to see that all regulations are carried out at all times. The buildings which are insured in mutual companies are not, in general, fireproof, but are of what is termed “mill construction”; that is, brick walls with wooden interior, the wooden construction, however, being in accordance with certain rules. From year to year the fire losses in the mutual companies have become smaller and smaller, until at the present time the loss was reduced to about one and one-half cents for each $ioo covered for the year 1909 in the Boston Manufacturers Company. Compare this with the average loss for the stock companies of the United States, which is 50 cents for each $100 covered. It is, of course, not practicable to apply the methods of the associated companies to all buildings in the country, but an appli¬ cation of these principles at least can be made with tremendous advantage. From such figures as are obtainable from the stock companies it appears that the average loss in buildings which are sprinkled runs as low as 10 cents per $100 covered. This illustration is cited merely as indicating the possibilities that may be obtained from protection. 22 APPENDIX III. PROFITS OF INSURANCE COMPANIES [Extract from the Report of the Illinois Fire Insurance Commission to the Senate and House of Representatives, January 4 , 1911 .] The premiums received by licensed fire companies in the United States for ten years ending January ist, 1908 , were $ 1 , 982 , 122 , 000 , and the losses for the same period were $ 1 , 170 , 804000 . The ex¬ penses were $ 687 , 642 , 000 , making a total for losses and expenses of $ 1 , 868 , 425 , 000 . The difference between the total income and out¬ go of the business for this ten year period is only $ 113 , 727 , 000 , and if the increase in the unearned premium reserve is taken into account these figures show that for the ten-year period mentioned there was no- underwriting profit on the business as a whole. Again, if we take similar statistics for any ten-year period since statistics have been kept in the business, we are unable to find any period where the aggregate net profits have exceeded about 3 per¬ cent, while as will later be shown, during the past ten years in the United States instead of being a net profit there has been a net loss on the aggregate sales of fire indemnity. It should be remembered that the aggregate profits or losses referred to are purely profits or losses on the thing sold, namely, fire indemnity as embodied in the policies issued, and that in most States the printed conditions of these policies are prescribed by law; but the stock fire company has two sources of income: First: Net profits on the indemnity sold as above indicated. Second: Interest on the company’s assets. This interest is di¬ visible into two parts, namely interest on the funds paid in by pol¬ icy holders which have not yet been earned either by payment of loss or by expiration of policies. This fund, known as the unearned premium reserve, is maintained by every company under the statu¬ tory requirements of the several States in which it transacts busi¬ ness. Taking all business in force, annual and term, this fund as required by law would probably average about seventy percent of the aggregate annual premiums, though the companies are com¬ pelled tO' pay cash for commissions and other running expenses, av¬ eraging say forty percent of the premiums; hence it is probably not far from the truth to assume that the average income derived from the unearned premium fund would be equivalent to interest 23 at current rates upon a sum equal to say one-half the annual pre¬ miums. The States very properly scrutinize the character of the investments of the companies, and the rate of interest is necessarily low, averaging probably not more than 4 percent per annum. This would yield the companies, as interest upon the unearned premium reserve, say 2 percent annually, which added to the 3 percent prof¬ its from the sales of indemnity during the most profitable decades in the history of the business, would leave a net profit to all com¬ panies upon all business of not over 5 percent. This estimate does not include the large number of companies that have been forced out of business by city conflagrations or other causes, nor the companies still in existence that have had their assets depleted or destroyed by conflagrations and have made the impairment good by contributions from stock¬ holders or by sales of new stock. A number of the most prominent stock fire companies now doing business in this country have been saved from destruction in this way, ana so far as the fire companies of this State are concerned, the Chicago fire wiped every Illinois company out of existence, while the San Francisco fire ruined three of the largest Illinois companies. Two of these companies passed out of existence, while one is able to continue in business because its stockholders heroically restored its entire as¬ sets out of their own pockets. It is facts such as these that cause fire underwriters of the longest experience to contend that, taking the country as a whole, no profit has been made from the sale of fire indemnity during the past fifty years or since statistics have been kept. Each company’s own capital stock and net surplus are invested in stocks and bonds, and as before stated, these investments must pass muster with the State authorities, who are prompt to rule out any investments of doubtful character. The high character of in¬ vestments thus required is naturally accompanied by a reduced in¬ come from the dividends and interest received from these invest¬ ments. The income derived from this source probably does not average over 4 percent on the aggregate assets of the companies. By the nature of their liabilities fire companies are largely debarred from investing in real estate loans, as the impending danger of city con¬ flagrations compels them to invest in securities that can be con¬ verted into cash in the great markets of the country on very short 24 notice. Some companies have been notably successful in investing their funds in the stock market and in this way have made more money by judicious investments than they have made from under¬ writing profit. It is obvious that this income from the company’s own assets has no connection with the transaction of fire insurance, as the stockholders, either singly or collectively, could invest their money to better advantage without subjecting it to the restric¬ tions of State control or to the perils of city conflagrations which now and then consume by a single fire the greater part of fire in¬ surance capital. So far we have been describing the fire insurance business as a whole. An inspection of the companies severally, indicates that while the statistical totals show a net profit ranging, according to the various sources of information, from nothing to a possible max¬ imum of 5 percent, this profit, whatever it may really be, has been very unequally distributed among the campanies. An examination of the reports filed with the Commission shows that from the time of the Chicago fire to the present, about forty years, hundreds of companies have failed or retired. Possibly no fact of greater sig¬ nificance can be presented in this connection, than the statement made by Mr. Charles A. Jenny, F. S. S., in the publication “Fire Insurance by States,” 1909, that from 1880 to the close of 1908, 912 fire insurance companies retired from business in the United States, and at the end of the period mentioned only 162 stock com¬ panies were reporting to the New York department. Of the com¬ panies now in existence worthy of consideration, some are losing ground and evidently destined to an early retirement. Some are barely holding their own, some show what might be considered a fair growth, while a few seem to be forging ahead at a rapid pace. There is no way of accounting for these things except through what would be a tedious and profitless analysis of the financial statements of the several companies. The disparities are no greater perhaps than can be found in other forms of modern activities and may probably best be accounted for by the law of survival found in every industry. It is proper to point out, however, the significant fact that the records do not show a single company that might be considered a notable success which has begun business during the past thirty years and done business on its own responsibility, with¬ out the backing in some form of an old and strong company. 25 APPENDIX IV. [CHAP. 312, ACTS OF 1911.] AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR A HIGH PRESSURE FIRE SERVICE IN THE CITY OF BOSTON. Be it enacted, etc., as follows: Sectioin I. The commissioner of public works of the city of Boston is hereby authorized to prepare plans and to proceed to- the immediate installation of a suitable and efficient system of higE pressure fire service for the said city. Section 2. For the purpose of defraying the expenses incur¬ red under the provisions of this act the city council may appro¬ priate during the ensuing six years the sum of one million dollars.. The said appropriation shall be not less than one hundred and fifty thousand dollars for each year, and the amount which the city council shall thus appropriate in any one year shall be included in the statutory limit of indebtedness of the city for that year. Section 3. The said city is hereby authorized to take such quantities of water as may be necessary for the proper carrying out of the purposes of this act from the Charles river basin. It shall also be authoized to purchase or to erect such pumps and sta¬ tions as may be ..necessary to carry out the purposes of this act. The work of building such pumping stations as may be found nec¬ essary under the authority of this act.shall be done by contract pub¬ licly advertised. Not more than fifteen percent of the indebted¬ ness incurred under the provisions of this.act in any year shall be expended for day labor. Section 4. This act shall take effect upon its acceptance by the city council and mayor of the city of Boston. (Approved April 20, 1911.) 26 APPENDIX V. BUILDING LIMITS AS DETERMINED BY EXISTING ORDINANCE. The building limits referred to in section eighteen of chapter 419 of the acts of the year 1892 are established as follows: All that portion of the city which is included within a line beginning * at the intersection of the center lines of Dover and Albany Streets, and thence running east through the center of said Dover Street to the harbor commissioners’ line, thence by the said harbor commissioners’ line around the northerly portion of the city to a point on Charles River at vhe intersection of said line with the easterly line of St. Mary’s Street extended; thence along said easterly line of St. Mary’s Street and the boundary line between Brookline and Boston to the center of Longwood Ave¬ nue ; thence through the center of said avenue to the center of St. Alphonsus Street; thence through the center of said street to the center of Ward Street; thence through the center of said Ward Street to the center of Parker Street; thence through the center of said Parker Street to the center of Ruggles Street; thence through the center of said Ruggles Street to the center of Wash¬ ington Street; thence through the center of Washington Street to a point opposite the center of Palmer Street; thence through the center of said Palmer Street and through the center of Eustis Street to the center of Hampden Street; and thence through the center of said Hampden Street and the center of Albany Street to the point of beginning; the said district being shown on a plan made by the city surveyor, dated June 28, 1881, and deposited in the office of the city engineer. 27 APPENDIX VL PHILADELPHIA AND NEW YORK BUILDING LIMITS The Philadelphia building law of 1904, Section ii, provides that all buildings in the city limits shall be of second class construction, namely, non-combustible exterior, except that the council may by or- ' dinance permit the construction of frame buildings in the rural por¬ tions. The ordinance under which the city is working is apparently that approved in March, 1894. This as amended, permits of third class structures only in portions of the 21st, 27th, and 35th wards. No permit can be granted for such buildings, unless the applicant shall have the consent in writing of at least two-thirds of the ad¬ joining or abutting property owners on both sides of the street, and it is not allowable to enlarge a frame building, to remove any such building to an adjoining lot, or to repair or reconstruct any frame building, which has been injured more than 50 percent of its original value by wear and tear or by effects of elements or by fire. A wooden building in this area must not exceed 45 feet in height. Wooden buildings must be separated by at least three feet or by brick walls, and any building used for other than dwelling house purposes must be at least 10 feet from any other building 25 feet or more in height, and at least four feet from a building less than 25 feet in height. The ordinance thus practically prohibits third class buildings in all but an extremely small portion of the city. As a matter of fact, it is the exception to find in Philadelphia wood houses under construction. The designation ‘Tre limits’’ is used in New York to designate the district within which no frame or wooden structure shall be built. In the Borough of Manhattan it includes all of the portion south of 165th Street and the Harlem River. In the Bronx it includes the district roughly bounded by the extreme northerly point of Manhattan. In Brooklyn the line is quite irregular, but is carried out as far as Flatbush Avenue in one direction, and includes the 30th Ward. In the Borough of Queens the district includes the area bounded by Newton Creek, Not Avenue, the East River and westerly line of Van Alst Avenue. A great deal of the prop¬ erty included in these limits was within a very few years occupied as farm land. Practically the whole of the Island of Manhattan, the major portion of the Bronx and Brooklyn, and considerable section of Queens, are thus safeguarded against buildings con¬ structed with exterior of inflammable material. 28 APPENDIX VIL THE COST OF A HOUSE. A Comparison of Brick, Wood, Cement, and Hollow Block Construction. By J. Parker B. Fiske. There can be little doubt, even in the mind of the casual ob¬ server, that Brick is a very desirable material with which to build a house. The public has gradually come to realize the enormous loss by fire, the excessive repairs, the rapid depreciation and the discomfort in both summer and winter arising from frame con- 4 struction, and to appreciate the fact that the House of Brick is not only fireproof, but that it requires no painting, that it does not de¬ cay or depreciate, and that, of all types of construction, it is the most beautiful. How is it, then, that America has continued so long to build her houses of wood, while the older countries of Europe abandoned this type of construction many generations ago ? An answer may be found in conversation with almost any intel¬ ligent man or woman—‘‘The first cost of the Brick House has been prohibitive.’’ However true this opinion may have been a generation ago, or however natural, today, to a people born and reared in a land of wooden houses, it no longer holds good. Conditions have changed; wood is no longer cheap; our forests have receded from civilization and have dwindled in size until frame construction costs almost as much as Brick—until, with its *^up- keep,” it costs more. A great majority of the American people, however who enjoy to the largest extent the benefits of human ingenuity and skill in other matters, are still denying themselves the advantages of a su¬ perior material for the construction of their homes because of a mistaken idea as to its relative cost. It is time, therefore, that the present-day facts be made public in a clear and logical manner, that all may know the truth. In order to prepare an accurate statement regarding the relative costs of different styles of construction, the writer has instituted a 29 careful investigation, in which all variable quantities were eliminated and a bona fide bid obtained for the construction, in a given locality, of a series of houses, each one exactly like the others in every par¬ ticular except the outer walls, which in the several houses were to be constructed of the several materials we wish to compare, i. e., Brick, wood, cement and hollow block. Lest a single contractor might make an error, or for some rea¬ son be unduly favorable to one material as against another, we have secured simultaneous bids from several equally reliable contractors. While the several figures on the Brick House vary considerably among themselves, as is inevitable with competitive bids, the rela¬ tive figures on Brick, wood, etc., are about the same in the case of one contractor as of another, and the average gives a fair and truth¬ ful conclusion. In making this investigation, a little modern eight-room house, of good design and excellent arrangement was chosen, the original having been actually built near Boston, Mass., under the direction of Thorndike & Kiessling, architects. This house is typical in size, arrangement and cost of thousands of houses which are being erected throughout the East. The architects were commissioned to prepare the plans and spec¬ ifications necessary for obtaining bids for this house when built with the following types of exterior wall construction, all other details being common to all types: Description of Various Types of Outer Wall Construction. Type I. Frame covered with boards and finished with clapboards over building paper; inside surface furred, lathed and plastered. Type 2. Frame covered with boards and finished with shingles over building paper; inside surface furred, lathed and plastered. Type 3. A lo-inch Brick wall, i. e., two 4-inch walls tied together with metal ties and separated by a 2-inch air space; in¬ side surface plastered directly on the Brick work. Face Brick to cost $17.50 per M.; inside Brick, $9.00 per M. Type 4. A 12-inch solid Brick wall; inside surface furred, lathed and plastered. Face Brick to cost $17.50 per M.; in¬ side Brick, $9.00 per M. 30 Type 5. Eight-inch hollow terra cotta blocks, stuccoed on the out¬ side and plastered directly on the inside. Type 6. Six-inch hollow terra cotta blocks, finished with a 4-inch Brick Veneer on the outside and plastered directly on the inside. Face brick to cost $17.50 per M. Type 7. Frame covered with boards and building paper, furred and covered with stucco on Clinton wire cloth; inside sur¬ face furred, lathed and plastered. Type 8. Frame covered with boards (building paper omitted), and finished with a 4-inQh Brick Veneer on the outside; in¬ side surface furred, lathed and plastered. Face Brick to cost $17.50 per M. Type 9. Frame finished on the outside with a 4-inch Brick Veneer tied directly to the studding (boarding omitted) ; inside surface furred, lathed and plastered. Face Brick to cost $17.50 per M. A separate drawing showing the details of each type of outer wall construction was prepared, and each was accompanied by a set of complete specifications for the entire house. Everything about the house, except the outer wall construction, ^ vvas identical in all nine types, and may be briefly covered by the following table: Details Common to All Types. A—^^Foundations ..Local Stone. B—Cellar Floor.Finished with 2-inch concrete of Portland cement. C—Chimney.. .Faced with Brick costing $17.50 per M. D—Fireplaces.Faced with Brick costing $17.50 per M. E—Plastering.First-class “two coat” work. F—Exterior Finish.. Cypress G—Blinds..White Pine H—Screens.Copper bronze on white pine frames. I—Window Frames.Hard Pine J—Floors.Double floors throughout, with paper between, ex¬ cept in unfinished attic; Georgia pine upper floors; main hall on first floor of oak. K—Inside Finish..North Carolina Pine L—Doors.Washington Cedar. M—Hardware.Bronze finish of ordinary type, costing $60.00 for the job. 31 O—Conductors. Copper, P—Flashing. Tin, Q—Electric Fixtures.Costing $8o.cx). R—Hot Water Heating.Costing $250.00 complete. S—Wiring .Costing $68.00, T—Plumbing .Costing $370.00. U—Painting.Exterior and interior; clapboard house, $225.00; other houses, $130.00. V—Glazing.Double thick German glass. Note:—Shades, kitchen range and tile work not included. The following local contractors of well known reputation and experience were then selected: W. F. Kearns Company.Boston McDonald & Joslin Company.Boston P. H. Jackson and Son Co.Brockton R. D. Donaldson.Lincoln J. T. Wilson & Son.Nahant Each was fully advised of the object of this investigation, and was asked if he was willing to undertake the preparation of figures which should truthfully set forth, to the best of his ability, the costs (including his profit;, of houses to be built within ten miles of Boston, according to these several plans and specifications. Each was told that we desired to know the exact truth; if, as alleged by some contractors, the cost of a Brick Hjouse is 25 to 30 percent more than one of wood, then we wished to know it, as nothing could be gained by an investigation of this kind which was biased or influenced by any favoritism for one type over another. Each contractor entered into the spirit of the investigation heartily, and agreed to figure out the cost fairly, to the best of his- ability. Each contractor was given the same information and instruc¬ tions, and each took plenty of time to figure the entire house with care. The following are the bids submitted by the five contractors in question, arranged without reference to the above order of names, each bidder standing ready to enter into a contract for the house in question at the figures submitted: 3 ^ (f) Q m lij > I- < a: < CL E o o 05 00 lO M o ;-i OI d ^ d o (H -H ^ > O O ffi -2 m o !h m d o d o o o o o o m o s d * 1-1 d d o CQ isi ^ ^ d .a d ;zl a> I—H bJD d • r^ dS U 2 d ;-i d o dJ ft d O Q. . o 2 H co liJ Q 00 00 o o o o o o 00 05 O TjH LO O O CO 00 5 D 05 M tH lO o CD 00 t- CO CD CO- O O O O O O M O O O O CD O CO O CD CO t- 05 05 C 05 Tt* t^- t>r CD CD t-*' t> ee- o o o o o o O O lO O O 05 t>-' o o o oci U5 tH O U5 LO 00 00 O CD 05 as CD CD CD l>* tr^ CD © 9 - O CO O ft) o CD ft) OO O O o t-H (Cq 00 oo’ ft) CO I>* CD CO '=+1 05 OO I>- t>- C^ CD 05 _^ t>- CD I>- l>- l>* so¬ ft CO ft) O O LO ft) cq ft ft) ft) CD CD rH 05 (Cq ft" I 05 ft U 5 OO Tfi tH cq CD th t>r CD*" t>^ t>- ee- so¬ ft (0 Q CQ LU > I- < QC < 0 . E o o U) d t_ re o Si a. _re O S- aq > O «> ft >^ I- JC o re UJ (0 o O (0 (O a> o X UJ V D) re ■M £ 0 ) o u «i 0 . 05 00 CD lO cq pq CQ CQ m CO cq o Iz: q; ft o (h pq d o Li bO d *rH d d d -M S ^ o S-s •n m g d d o o c; a d -M U 1 o d w d o d o o u c; a; a d fa o m d PQ -M HH m o o a « o a w - ft) cq iH CO t-; CO o' cq’ CD 05 00 CD CD ft CO ft’ CD ft CO ID ft rH ft) CD tH cq’ 00 CD* cq CD 05 * rH Tti cq tH ft CD ft ft ft ft ft ft U 9 d tH cq eo ID 6 d o’ 6 o’ d d d d d PQ CQ pq CQ CQ <1^ «M O o bO d Li o 33 In making up his figures, one contractor used the following: Price of Materials. Lime ..$i.oo per bbl., 200 lbs. Portland Cement.$1.60 per bbl. Spruce Framing .$26.00 per M. ft. B. M. North Carolina Pine.ic. per inch per ft. Georgia Matched Pine (first quality).$75-00 per M. ft. B. M. Shingles .$4-75 per M. Clapboards . $55-oo per M. Hemlock Boarding.$22.00 per M. ft. B. M. 6-inch Hollow Blocks.10 i-2c. per sq. ft. 8-inch Hollow Blocks.14c. per sq. ft. Face Brick .$17*50 per M. Common Brick .$9.00 per M. Allowance for Furring, Lathing, and Plastering... .5c. per sq. ft. Wages of Bricklayers...60c. per hour. Wages of Carpenters.50c. per hour. Upon inquiry we have found much reliable evidence to corrobo¬ rate our figures. We are permitted to refer to three investigations conducted by other parties in different parts of the country, as follows: Mr. Willliam D. Austin, the well-known Boston architect, hav¬ ing made a careful investigation of comparative costs on a $10,000 house, makes the following statement: “The exterior walls are of brick 8 inches thick, with wooden furring strips against the inner surface, on which the lath and plas¬ ter are applied. “The cost of this brickwork, including the necessary furring and the somewhat more expensive window frames and finish required would be about $1,200. The exterior walls, if in frame with shin¬ gles or clapboards, would cost about $600 less, and if in frame with metal lathing and cement plaster, about $500 less. In other words, if the total cost of the house in brick is $10,000, the saving in wood would be six percent and in cement plaster five percent. “The figures here given are based on carefully-made estimates which were obtained from reliable contractors, and, generally speak¬ ing, represent the comparative cost of wood, stucco and brick walls.” Mr. Austin’s figures are rather more favorable to the use of 34 brick than are ours, which confirms the impartiality of our investi¬ gation and the conservatism of our conclusions. Mr. W. E. Dunwody, of Macon, Ga., makes the following statement: “In January, 1910, I let a contract for a Brick Veneered House, in which I specified local Face Brick at $15 per M. I found from actual experience that a Brick Veneered House cost only about five percent more than a corresponding frame house. Of course, the frame house could be cheapened by making the foundations lighter and by using an inferior grade of lumber, but that would make an inferior house and would not be a fair comparison. The man who wishes to build as cheap a house as possible is not inter¬ ested in this discussion.” Perhaps the most convincing verification of our figures is that contained in a letter from Hansberger & Livingstone, of Columbus, Ohio, who for fifteen years have been engaged in the building of moderate-sized detached houses for sale. They state as follows: “We have built about six hundred houses in the city of Colum¬ bus. The first year we built entirely of frame, the second year about half Brick and half frame, and then we figured out the cost between the Brick and the frame houses, and we found that the actual difference did not exceed $400 on a $5,000 house, or about eight percent more for brick than for frame. “We build most of our houses with a 9-inch wall and a one-inch air space, tying the two walls together with metal ties and furring, lathing and plastering on the inside. “Taking the saving in insurance, heating and painting on the Brick house, we have found that there is really no difference in the cost of the houses at the end of a few years, and we now build Brick Houses almost altogether. “When we come to sell the house, we find that we can always get about $1,000 more for the Brick house than for the frame house on account of the beauty, durability and economy, which always seems to speak for itself. The Brick House looks so much more substantial than the frame house that we use Brick every time. “The Brick House is much cooler in summer than the frame house, and we have tested the heating in winter and have found that it takes 33 1-3 percent more fuel for a frame house than it does for one of Brick.” 35 APPENDIX VIIL COST OF MAINTENANCE ON HOUSES OF SECOND AND THIRD CLASS CONSTRUCTION. An estimate of the probable yearly charge-off and repairs on a dwelling of third class construction, namely, all of wood, and on a dwelling of the same size, character of finish, etc., but of second class construction, namely, with exterior of incombustible material: I. Third class dwelling covering about 1500 sq. ft., two and a half stories and cellar. Cost, $10,000. Estimated efficient life, 20 years. Annual charge-off with interest at 4 percent.$736. Repairs, painting, etc. 250. Total per year.$986. 2. Cost of house of same dimensions, but of sec¬ ond class construction, $11,500. Estimated efficient life, 40 years. Annual charge-off with interest at 4 percent.$580.75 Repairs and painting about. 100.00 Total per year.$680.75 The cost per year on the above basis for a third class building is $305.25 more than than of a second class building, an increase of 45 percent. ^ Applying the same reasoning to the ordinary three tenement house of which so many are built in our suburbs, the comparison would be as follows: I. Three tenement house entirely of wood or third class construction, approximate cost, $6500. Estimated efficient life, 20 years. Annual charge-off with interest at 4 percent.$478.40 Repairs and painting. 150.00 Total per year.$628.40 2. Cost of house of same dimensions, but of sec¬ ond class construction, $7500. Estimated efficient life, 30 years. Annual charge-off with interest at 4 percent... .$423.50 Repairs and painting. 75-00 Total per year.$498.50 In this case the cost per year for the third class building is $129.90 or 26 percent greater than that of the second class building. Figures such as these can be only suggestive, and it would be almost impossible to establish anything like exact ratios of cost of maintenance, length of available life, or amount of de¬ preciation, as these do not depend wholly on the nature of the con¬ struction, but are much modified by exposure, character of occu¬ pancy and by the frequency of change in tenants. But the figures are at least a justification of the conviction held by many experts, that, taking everything into account, a building of second class construction, will wear better, last longer and usually cost less in the long run, than a similar building of third class construc¬ tion, with combustible exterior. The continued construction of wooden buildings would therefore seem to be a mistake from the standpoint of cost, of use as measured by length of life, and above all, of the fire hazard. 37 APPENDIX IX. SPRINKLER INSTALLATIONS. The fundamental reason for the suggestion that automatic sprinklers be installed in second class buildings within the fire lim¬ its, is the prevention of conflagration hazards. When the regula¬ tions which are suggested in the report are put in force, only first- class buildings may be built within the fire limits. The introduc¬ tion of sprinklers in the existing second class buildings will make these buildings practically as satisfactory from a fire hazard stand¬ point as the first-class buildings. The installation of automatic sprinklers will entail some expense, but we feel that the expense is justified. From experience with the automatic sprinkler in in¬ dustrial as well as in other buildings, including all sorts of storage warehouses, retail dry goods stores, etc., it has proved itself not only of value from a fire prevention standpoint, but also a good invest¬ ment on account of the reduction in insurance rates. The introduction of sprinklers is becoming more and more com¬ mon in other large cities, and will undoubtedly soon be required by law in nearly all classes of buildings. There are many benefits to be derived from the use of automatic sprinklers which are not or¬ dinarily given sufficient consideration, such as: (1) The reduction in risk of loss of life, particularly in build¬ ings where large numbers of people are employed; (2) The saving in water damage, since the fire is put out by the operation of a few sprinkler heads, thus avoiding the flooding of the buildings which usually takes places when the fire streams are called into service. In this connection it is to be noted that the protective department men are familiar with the location of the sprinkler shut-off valves, so that the system can be closed as soon as the fire is out. (3) Each building in the business section which is equipped with automatic sprinklers, reduces the insurance rates in that sec¬ tion by reducing the exposure hazard. If sprinkling is common very material reductions in insurance rates should follow. (4) The insurance on the contents of the building would also be materially reduced, thus benefiting the tenants, and more than offsetting the increase in rent made necessary by the expense of in¬ stalling the sprinklers. When automatic sprinklers are generally introduced the results will, of course, be most beneficial if the equivalent of two supplies can be given to every building. This could be accomplished by making connections to buildings in blocks, using one large tank or other secondary supply for the whole block. We submit below a table giving the reductions which the Boston Board of Fire 38 Underwriters will allow for sprinkler systems with two supply pipes, where a wet pipe system is used. REDUCTION IN INSURANCE RATES IF AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ARE INSTALLED. The Percentage of Reduction Is Given In Tabular form with all the Different Alarm Systems Which May Be Used in Conjunction With the Sprinkler System. Allowance Wet Pipe System With Automatic Fire Alarm, Watch Supervision and Sprinkler Notification . 50 per cent With Watch, Automatic Fire Alarm, Sprinkler Notifica^ tion and Auxiliary Alarm . 47^/4 “ With Watch, Watch Supervision and Sprinkler Notifica* tion . 1 . 471/^ With Automatic Fire Alarm, and Sprinkler Notification 45 With Automatic Fire Alarm, Watch and Watch Sup¬ ervision .... 45 With Watch, Sprinkler Notification and Auxiliary Alarm 45 With Watch and Watch Supervision . 42i/4 “ With Watch and Auxiliary Alarm . 42^4 “ With Watch and Automatic Fire Alarm . 42^4 “ With Watch and Sprinkler Notification . 42 Y 2 “ With Automatic Fire Alarm . 40 With Watch . 40 With Sprinkley Notification . 35 “ “ The following illustration is typical of the cost of insurance be¬ fore and after sprinkling. This illustration is taken for a building which has about 35,000 sq. ft.: Value of building.$ 53,000x0 Value of contents .150,000.00 5-year rate on building per $100 before sprinkling, $.36 per annum, which makes the insurance . 190.80 Annual rate on contents, $i.i 5 > which makes the cost of insurance of con¬ tents before sprinkling 1,725.00 Total cost of insurance per annum. $1,915.80 The cost of the installation of sprinklers would be approx¬ imately $1750, and the reduction in insurance premiums would be 40 percent. Forty percent of $1915.80 is $766.32. That is, an in¬ vestment of $1750 would make a saving of $766.32 in insurance rates. If we charge 15 percent interest and depreciation on the in¬ vestment, it still leaves a net profit of $503.82, by which the sprink¬ ler installation would pay for itself in three and a half years. It is to be noted that in the illustration given above the con¬ tents value is high compared with the cost of the building. In cases of buildings used largely for office purposes where the con¬ tents value is low, the installation of sprinklers will not, of course, prove as good an investment. But in any case the automatic sprink¬ lers will yield a reasonable return through the reduction in insu¬ rance rates, besides giving protection against loss by fire. 39 APPENDIX X. PROPOSED NEW LEGISLATION PART 1.—PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO EXTEND THE BUILDING LIMITS. Section twenty-seven of chapter forty-five of the Revised Or¬ dinances of eighteen hundred and ninety-eight is hereby amended by striking out all of said section and substituting therefor the fol¬ lowing: Building Limits. Section 27 . The building limits referred to in section nine of chapter five hundred and fifty of the Acts of the year nineteen hun¬ dred and seven are established as follows: All of the city within the corporate limits. Within said limits no structure shall be permitted to be built of third class construction, or with the external walls or roof of com¬ bustible material, except as set forth in sections nine and ten of chapter five hundred and fifty of the Acts of the year nineteen hun¬ dred and seven. Every addition to any structure within said limits shall be of either first or second class construction as set forth in the building laws. 40 APPENDIX X Cont’d. PART 2.—AN ACT TO RESTRICT THE FIRE HAZARD AND TO ES¬ TABLISH FIRE LIMITS IN THE CITY OF BOSTON. Section i. The fire limits of the City of Boston shall in¬ clude all jiroperty within a district bounded as follows; Beginning at a point on Charles River Embankment opposite Berkeley Street, thence southerly along the line of Berkeley Street to the Boston & Albany Railroad, thence easterly along the line of said railroad to Broadway, thence southeasterly along the line of Broadway to Fort Point Channel, thence by said channel and by the Harbor line around the city to the Charles River dam, thence by the Charles River embankment to the point of beginning. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Boston may, by ordinance from time to time, extend and define said fire limits and may establish other fire limits in any part of the city within which the provisions of this Act shall be enforced. Section 3. Within fire limits as herein defined or as they may be from time to time extended, defined, or established as herein provided, every structure hereafter built and every addi¬ tion hereafter made to any existing structure shall be of first-class construction throughout, as the same is defined in Chapter 550 of the Acts of 1907. This provision shall not apply to buildings erected by the United States Government or structures authorized by special act of the General Court of Massachusetts: nor to wharves; nor to buildings not exceeding 27 feet in height on wharves; nor to market sheds; nor to market buildings not ex¬ ceeding such height; nor to temporary structures to facilitate the prosecution of any authorized work which may be erected under such conditions as the building commissioner may prescribe. Section 4. Within said fire limits, all buildings existing at the time of the passage of this Act, which are of second or third class construction shall be equipped throughout with a sprinkler service, with two independent supplies from the street mains and with sprinkler head and piping, all installed in accordance with the usage and rules of the National Board of Fire Underwriters, except, however, that this provision shall apply to hotels and lodg¬ ing houses only in basements, first stories, public halls and pubdic rooms and shall not otherwise apply to buildings used only for habita¬ tion. In case of buildings used in part for habitation and in part for other purposes, the portions of said buildings so otherwise used shall be protected by sprinklers as herein provided. The installation of said sprinkler services shall be complete so that the same shall be in operation in all buildings in which the same shall be required within two years from the date of the pas¬ sage of this Act. After the expiration of that time, the building commissioner shall cause such building to be inspected, and if the 41 owner of any building shall be found to have neglected to comply with the provisions of this Act, the building commissioner shall forthwith, in writing, notify the owner, agent, or any person hav¬ ing an interest therein of such neglect, and the owner of any such building as shall not have been equipped as herein provided shall be liable for payment of a fine of $io for each and every day after such notice until the building is so equipped; such fine to be collect¬ ed by the City of Boston and to become arpart of its general fund. If such neglect continues for 6o days after said notice, then the building commissioner shall forthwith affix in a conspicuous place upon the external walls of said building a notice that the owner has not complied with the requirements of this Act, and such last mentioned notice shall not be removed or defaced without his consent. The said commissioner may with the written approval of the mayor order any building, the owner of which shall have failed to comply with the provisions of this Act af¬ ter the expiration of the said 6o days, to be vacated as dangerous and to remain vacant until such provisions have been carried out. Section 5. Within the fire limits as herein described alter¬ ations of existing buildings of the second -and third class shall be allowed only when the said alterations are not of a nature to in¬ crease the height of the building, or the fire hazard, and only when such alterations shall have been approved by the Fire Bureau. Section 6. All acts or parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, in so far as they affect such provisions. Section 7. This Act shall take effect upon its passage. 42 APPENDIX X Cont’d. PART 3.—AN ACT TO ESTABLISH A FIRE BUREAU IN THE CITY OF BOSTON. Section i. There shall be established in the city of Boston a Board to be called the Fire Bureau, which shall consist of the Fire Commissioner, Building Commissioner and the Police Com¬ missioner of said City, ex officiis, and four other members, citi¬ zens of Massachusetts, who shall be residents of or engaged in business in said City; to be appointed by the mayor in following manner:— One member from two candidates, one to be nominated by the Boston Chamber of Commerce, and one by the Boston Real Estate and Auction Board; one member from two candidates to be nominated by the Bar Association of the City of Boston; one member from two candidates, one to be nominated by the Boston Society of Architects, and one by the Boston Society of Civil En¬ gineers; one member from two candidates, one to be nominated by the Master Builders’ Association, and one by the Contractors’ and Builders’ Association. These appointments shall not be sub¬ ject to confirmation by the Civil Service Commission. The ap¬ pointments first made shall be for the terms of one, two, three and four years respectively, so that the term of one member shall expire each year. All subsequent appointments shall be for the term of four years. Vacancies shall be filled in tht» same man¬ ner in which the original appointments are made. The mayor shall designate, as Chairman of the Bureau, one of the four ap¬ pointed members. The Chairman shall receive as salary the sum of $1,500 per annum and the other appointed members shall each be paid at the rate of $10 per day for actual service, but not more than $1,000 in any one year. Section 2. The Bureau is authorized and directed at its discretion to employ such inspectors, assistants and clerks as it may deem necessary and, subject to the approval of the mayor, to fix the salaries to be paid therefor, to rent suitable premises and to incur expenses for traveling, printing and such other mat¬ ters as shall be incidental to the work of the bureau. The ex¬ penses thus incurred as well as the compensation of the members of the bureau shall be paid by the city upon warrants signed by the Chairman. Section 3. This Bureau shall have within the limits of the City of Boston all the authority and all the duties and shall be charged with all the responsibility of the State Eire Marshal as described in Sections 2-5 inclusive of Chapter 32 of the Revised Laws of Massachusetts and the jurisdiction of said Eire Marshal in said city of Boston shall cease with the passage of this Act. This Bureau shall make a public report each year, stating the causes of all fires which shall have occurred in the city of Boston during the preceding year, giving "iRe names of the per- 43 son or persons responsible therefor, which report shall be printed and distributed as a public document and shall from time to time report to the prosecuting attorney of Suffolk County any viola¬ tions of law which it shall discover. No material shall be removed and no repairs shall be made to a building damaged by fire until the Bureau has made its inves¬ tigation of the premises or has given a definite permit in writ¬ ing, permitting such removal or repairs. Section 4. This Bureau shall examine all buildings for the erection or alteration of which permits shall be granted by the Building Department of the City of Boston and it shall be the duty of the Building Department to report to this Bureau all such per¬ mits when granted; and this Bureau shall issue a report as to the condition of said buildings, stating whether or not they conform in construction and equipment to the laws regulating such con¬ struction and equipment; and said Bureau shall have the power to forbid the issuance of permanent fire insurance policies on any such building and to order the cancellation of any policies of fire insur¬ ance which may have been placed on such building prior to such examination and report; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the issuance of fire insurance on build¬ ings in process of construction. Section 5. This Bureau shall have power to make such rules or regulations as it shall deem necessary to lessen the fire haz¬ ard, to provide for the safety of occupants of buildings, to enforce proper care in handling and storing combustibles, and to prevent carelessness as far as it increases the fire risk. Any violation of the rules, regulations or decisions of the Bureau shall be punishable by fine or imprisonment of the party or parties responsible or by closure of the building affected, the recommendations of the Bureau being enforced in the same manner as is now provided for the rec¬ ommendations of the state and local Boards of Health. Section 6. All of the official acts and utterances of this Bu¬ reau shall be privileged. Section 7. All acts or parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed in so far as they affect such provisions. Section 8. This Act shall take effect upon its passage. 44 APPENDIX XL SAVING IN INSURANCE RATES POSSIBLE AS RESULT OF INTRODUCTION OF HIGH PRESSURE SERVICE. Boston Board of Fire Underwriters, February 13, 1911. Mr. C. H. Blackall. Dear Sir: A meeting of the Executive Committee \vas held this morning. The Committee authorized me to say to you that they were unanimously in favor of making a reduction in the rates in the congested district of Boston, provided the high pressure fire service system, as proposed by the late City Engineer, Jackson, is installed. This reduction should amount to from $100,000 to $125,000. Yours very sincerely, F. E. CABOT, Secretary. 45 APPENDIX XII. FIRE FIGHTING APPARATUS AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS To arrive at definite conclusions as to the condition of the Bos¬ ton Fire Department, comparisons have been made with the depart¬ ments of cities of about the same size. These comparisons are taken from data contained in the annual reports of the cities of St. Louis, Cleveland and Baltimore. From the standpoint of equipment, we find that the Boston De¬ partment has more apparatus than any of the aforementioned cities, and that the apparatus is in good condition. The force available for fire service consists of 44 engine compnies, 27 ladder companies, 13 chemical companies, 3 towers and 3 fire-boats, a total of 90 companies, manned by a force of 992 men. St. Louis has but 64 companies with a force of 738; Baltimore, 56 companies with a force of 680; Cleveland, 48 companies with a force of 520. While the daily reports of the Boston Department show an enrollment of from 992 to 994 men, the force available for fire duty is not always up to standard, and companies very often report at fires without a sufficient number of men for effective service. This condition is likely to exist with frequency during meal hours and vacation pe¬ riods. The following figures taken from the morning reports—Au¬ gust 15th, 1910, being a vacation period, December i6th, not a va¬ cation period—show the force available for fire duty: Fire Force. 587 664 Details, Total Days off and Date Enrollment Vacations August 15, 1910. 992 405 December 16, 1910 994 330 The total number is further reduced during meal hours, so that from 6.00 a. m. to 9.15 p. m. every day, there is one-third of the force on leave, reducing the number of available men for fire duty on August 15th to 392, and on December i6th to 443. Under these conditions a very ordinary fire at the start often requires the sending in of a second and sometimes a third alarm, to get a sufficient num¬ ber of men to properly handle the first alarm apparatus. While waiting for the second and third alarm companies to respond, val¬ uable time is lost and the fire is very apt to make headway during the periods of waiting. To obviate this weakness in the Department, the Fire Commissioner has recently recommended the appointment of additional firemen so that the force may be adequate at all times. The Committee believes that this is a wise provision. A feature which is likely to prove beneficial, not omy to Boston, but to many of the surrounding cities and towns, is the develop¬ ment of a system of covering whereby the fire department of one 46 municipality can procure aid from an adjoining town. This system has not yet been put into effect over the entire metropolitan dis¬ trict, but the co-operation of the departments in the cities and towns contiguous to Boston has already been secured. Arrangements have been completed between Boston and several of the surround¬ ing municipalities whereby, on first alarms, apparatus located near boundary lines crosses over into the other town in answer to alarms from border boxes. Boston has this arrangement with Somerville, Newton and Milton, and it is probable that Cambridge and Brook¬ line will also adopt the plan. The Boston Fire Signal Service, which establishes direct and instant knowledge of fire in any adjoining territory and by means of which apparatus can be summoned by a series of signals, ex¬ tends at present to Cambridge, Newton, Brookline, Milton, Somer¬ ville and Chelsea; service from outside with Boston Fire Depart¬ ment houses is from Brookline. Cambridge, Milton and Somer¬ ville. It is the intention of the Boston Department to extend this branch of the service as rapidly as conditions will permit. The fire alarm branch of the department, while not the most modern, is, nevertheless, efficient. The building where the head¬ quarters is located, and in which the fire alarm branch is installed, »s in a bad fire district, threatening the possible disablement of the system in case of conflagration there. The building is of fireproof construction and equipped with a water curtain, but there is con¬ siderable woodwork used inside the building which should be re¬ moved as far as it is practicable to do so. The water supply in Boston is equal to that of any city in the country. It can deliver at a given point about 25,000 gallons a minute, an amount sufficient for fire fighting purposes under ordin¬ ary conditions. If the proposed high pressure system be installed as recommended by this Committee, substantially as embodied in Chapter 312 of the Acts of 1911, Boston will have one of the most efficient fire departments in the country. 47 s.kV. QIC'.' 'f^ii :t, ilsK 3 0112 098432955 MS" ■■0 T>< — •)■■■ ’■ ■■ '•; e^>w-w*fl ^.^;i..ti^ JK| - Ft ’ ^::^: ••' >r ' rw/'- : ■ :i'; , :. ■ I- -vtt . • ' ,.v_.;^ :■ r^ -.7 ^,.-i:’. 0 -vF . ':!•'. * ' .i.'u ; V: ,V‘ *f,i^ I.'>■ ■ 'S .,TS?-i fK] ;*33' V;>-« h-yi » n •T ■* . ^ I ^ j »■ ‘ j • 1. ' 'I ; * " .Sa ' ■ v‘:'^ ‘M I P C" *, V • ';' M‘ <( 'i **¥£S py .-, I itWl '•:'ls!:';!t.A,. in'.I '■'.•"‘•‘i' ' «^4 'V’l ,, ^ • V /‘ ' s.' , Bait....: - 74>^ . ^•\ , ■’ ♦ ' i«» • «ni 1 ■?•* I f j'. / ' , ^Uf., ■ ’ “'* 22 i. C'v s y „ ■'■ ■ A. " V ijiu > i#," K '... f, ■ '> r'M's' I 4Afi ' 't< «> v/i.ii *#.’,.> k * I • •T . a ' '/« .'O' y'.;l: 'l<^ »• il!Ii