CITIES COMPARED.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19154, 10 November 1927, Page 4

CITIES COMPARED.

LONDON AND NEW YORK. AN AMERICAN'S CONCLUSIONS. Mr Thomas Adams, General Director of'thc Regional Plan of New York and its Environs, makes some comparisons, in the "New York Times," between London and New York. He states:— The material general facts are these: —• (1) The average height of buildings in Manhattan and the central areas of London are the same, or under five storeys. (2) The average width or streets in Mniihattan is about one-third more than the average width of streets in the central areas of London. (3) Notwithstanding that central Loudon has much narrower streets than Manhattan with the same average height of buildings, the traffic congestion in the former, generally speaking, is no greater than in the latter. (4) In insolated places traffic in London appears to be more congested than in New York, but in all such places this is due to the fact that many more people are transported in buses on the surface in London than in New York. New York has many more private cars than London, but private cars do not stop so frequently, and are more flexible than buses.

(o) Commuting in London and New York takes about tlie same time for the same distances, but vehicles are much less crowded in London. This summer I travelled daily for a month, during peak hours, from suburban to central London on the underground, and never had to stand once. I now travel daily uptown on the 1.E.T., and have difficulty in getting standing room in peak hours. Skyscrapers could not be erected in London in places where they would be profitable because the subsoil is unsuitable, and also because, as a rule, the cost of widening the streets to obtain access to them would be prohibitive.

It is: difficult, if not impossible, to estimate what the effect of the New York skyscraper will really be in causing traffic congestion to a greater extent than in cities that have no skyscrapers, until the average heights and bulks of buildings in the central parts of New York rise substantially above the average of other cities. Floor Space in Skyscrapers. Whatever advantages may accrue to business from vertical transportation within the building, it still appears to be true that the area of floor space in a skyscraper imposes as great a burden on street use as the same area of floor space in a building of medium height in which the same class of business is carried on. It therefore follows that traffic congestion will increase as' the average heights of buildings increase—unless streets arc made wider to correspond to the greater average heights. Skyscrapers conceutrate business on one acre which, with lower buildings, might cover two acres. This does not mean that they, in themselves, have any" influence on the volume of business that comes to a city. On the other hand, if, when they become more numerous, they have the effect of congesting the streets more than lower buildings, they wift destroy accessibility and drive away business. Alternatively they will impose an enormous burden on the city to improve the access and thereby keep business away in consequence of high taxation.

The effect of the skyscraper on traffic conditions will only be fully felt when it is found, if ever it can be, that it is practicable for a city to have buildings with an averago height substantially greater than five storeys served by a street system designed for buildings of a much lower average height and for slow-moving traffic.