AIR=SPACE-A CHANGE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1136, 25 May 1911, Page 2

AIR=SPACE-A CHANGE.

AND WHEREFOR NOT? . THE FOLIA' OF BARREN AREAS. The proposed nir-spe.cc by-law lias drawn a hostile criticism, but it docs not lack champions. The following remarks are by one qualified to speak as an authority." He states: "Critics have made a great deal of the fact thai the proposed by-law reduces tho air-space requirement of suburban dwellings from 2000 ft., to 1000 ft. Well, the proposed reduction should bo considered on its merits. I happen to know that tho By-laws Committee, in arriving at the decisions embodied in the draft by-law, was actuated by a number of considerations which cannot be ignored. First and foremost comes the fact that the whole of the suburban areas will shortly 1m served by an efficient sewerage. In most of tho suburbs tho drainage system, has already been completed. This in itself goes far to justify the proposed reduction iu Hie air-space. "Practical considerations of economy must not lie ignored. If the by-law cornea into operation, a suburban shop, built to cover a twenty-loot lrontage, will have to be provided with an open space in. rear fifty feet deep and twenty feet wide. This is the nearest approach to congestion that can occur under the now regulation. To contend that such'open space is iuadequato is absurd. The GC-foot street is universal iu the suburbs, and this, taken in conjunction with tho provisions of the new by-law. puts out. of court tho suggestion of undue congestion likely to lead to tho creation ol slum areas. . . , ~ , "The \OOO-foot provision of the new bylaw means that every suburban dwelling will have an adjacent open space-apart from passage-wavs less than five feet wide -at least equivalent to an area mora than thirty feet square. This will provide a sufficient drying ground, and quite as much land a; the average working man can profitably ".so for garden purposes. "In the cas2 both of shops and dwellings in the suburbs, care must bo . taken to conserve tho interests of people of limited means. .To compel mil shopkepers to maintain a vacant a?cn of 2000 square feet establishments is to place a heavy bu den on their shoulders. This applies equally °o the case, of small suburban dwellings. The working man, whether. bo is a payer of rent or intent on acquiring ft home of his' own, is not helped, but hindered by the maintenance of tho present air-space provision. The large proportion of vacant space adds considerably to the rent or cost, as the ease may lie, of his home, and ex P ?ricnco has shown that unnecessarily large open spaces adjacent to suburban cottages are liable to degenerate into dumping-grounds .for rubbish, ml "■ suits decidedly injurious from the standpoint of sanitation. . , "The committee.was probably vise, in abandoning various proposals to discriminate between suburban shops and dwcllin«, in the matter of air-space. One proposal was to permit n reduction of airspace in streets already traversed by tramways or likely to become tramway routes. Against this it is to be urged that an uncertain standard, at best, would be thus established. Any. attempt, -to discriminate between shops and dwellings in the suburbs is hedged about with difficulties. Shops are liable to be converted into dwellings, and vice versa. Tho only reasonable course was to eot up a general standard. . . . . "A proposal championed in liataitai with Mine enthusiasm is that a minimum frontage of 10 fee.t should bo insisted upon in airparis of Greater Wellington except the late Wellington Ward. The proposal . totally ignores practical considerations of the first importance. Given effect,to, it' would ■ impose a killing restriction on. . building enterprise. In a great majority of cases twontv foot is <m ample frontage. for suburban shops. In the suburbs at tho present time plenty of examples may bo seen of,-, shops built on too wide a frontage.'"'' TMially the windows and the ehop behind tlieni arc meagrely furnisher] with goods and fittings. The aspect of the establishment is miserable, and the injudicious occupier struggles along burd-. ened bv aheavv ground-rent or'ils'cquiva- -, lent in capital cost. To contend that tho legalising of comparatively narrow .frontages is likely to promote the creation of slum areas is ridiculous. If the contention were sound, many of the mo;t aristocratic quarters in London, Downing Street amongst the number, must, be rated as "The advocates of the forty-foot mini-' mum frontage are equally astray in regard to dwelling-houses. Of late years a stylo of building has become popular in Wellington which answers every reasonable demand so far as efficiency is concerned, and has the merit of boinc. cheap.. H consists of two cottages, built in a single block, one tenement being separated from the other by a brick wall. For buildings of this tvpe a frontage of thirty feet for each tenement is ample. To insist on a forty-foot frontage would simply be to compel peop'.o who rent or buy small houses to pay for an area of useless ground. A row of houses, each one separated from its neighbour by a brick wall on one side, and by a pair of threefoot six-inch right-of-ways on the other, mav not satisfy tho aspirations of ft pardon city enthusiast,. but it touches as high a standard as a city can reasonably expect its poorer citizens to pay for and ™Des a pHe the loud-voiced . protest .that has b en raised in Hntaitm. it ,s. highly probable that the views favoured in at üburb will not by any means find imvnrvil acceptance n other parts of tho s,,burbii area. No doubt, if, any Clio . snu put forward a united, demand ■■ fir MR frontages and extensive open lor ug no"| b f it . rcf dents will 6pa ° U eht Possibly tho position might carry s cglit. loi J» 5 ( £, , ~n v wiHl for each suburb. What£i«ict»,;^ci| diie regard'for efficient .^>> tat '™ eSdHy Vwellington City Com, «'•" ■'