ABSTRACT
Typically, tall buildings are discussed either in terms of their architectonic features and the theories that shape them or the technological components which enable them to be built and to operate. This paper investigates a third variable, the impact of building codes and legislation upon the tall building. The historical development of the relationship between tall buildings and the laws which affect them is explored by referencing legislative systems in operation internationally and their various methods of enforcement with respect to their relative influence on the built form.
INTRODUCTION
"People collect stamps, furniture, all manner of things, but not building regulations. They are regarded, apparently, as working tools to be repaired when necessary or discarded for a new model when their useful life is over. They are regarded as historical evidence only officially, and then not at all times...thus there is very little interest in what 'was' simply as an historical fact. Objective studies of building regulations are almost non- existent, so that the question 'What is building regulation?' which must arise first in any such study, is very rarely asked." McFee Rogers. The Law of Canadian Municipal Corporations. Toronto, Carswell, 1959.
The phenomenon of the tall building has been the focus of much attention with regard to its architectural, or stylistic, development. The aesthetic implications of its form, appearance and impact upon the site, the street or the city have warranted considerable scholastic attention. Similarly, the technological components of tall building development have also undergone extensive critical examination. As a relatively contemporary building type reliant upon developing technologies to enable hitherto unachievable story heights, the advent of, for example, cast iron framing and the passenger elevator have become the focus of much study and are well documented in their relative contributions to the field.
However, a third variable can also be identified which has exerted a substantial influence on the development of the skyscraper. This is the vehicle of law, the imposition of legal provisions which control almost every field of human behavior as they prescribe societally-- orientated objectives, such as health or safety.
Law affects construction in a number of ways, usually through the provisions of common law and statute law. Although the former exerts control of building through such branches as contract or tort law, affecting the performance of those involved in the building process, it is primarily through statutes, which provide mandatory criteria for construction, that tangible changes to buildings are achieved. Many countries have enacted legal requirements either in the form of zoning or building regulations which apply to most forms of buildings within their sphere of influence, although typically little has been written regarding the actual physical result of those provisions upon the built form. This may in part be due to the somewhat indigestible nature of their legislative format, making building legislation an unappealing area of study. It may also reflect a possible underestimation of their overall influence on buildings. The incremental nature of laws, particularly codes, reduces each requirement to a singular, discreet mandate. As such, the influence of each code may seem relatively minor by comparison to the wealth of other variables which are part of the process of design. However, when viewed in total with other code requirements and added to the other restrictions which exist in alternate control systems - zoning, national or state acts, insurance or civil law, for example - the cumulative effect of all these simultaneous, overlapping and sometimes even conflicting influences can be considerable. This assertion is particularly relevant to tall buildings which, due to the heightened concerns associated with fire, escape, spread of flame and structural collapse, have been the focus of some of the strictest and most varied forms of control.
It is important to establish the extent to which law affects the nature of the built environment for, although the intent may be a positive one, the cumulative force of various legal restrictions may have a hitherto undetected or unwarranted effect on design. Perhaps more importantly, the tall building will constitute the primary form of construction by the beginning of the twenty- first century. The United Nations predicts that, as the population of the world reaches seven billion, expanding the greatest in Third World countries, as much as half of the population will be living in cities and therefore are likely to be housed in multi-level buildings. It is vital that the forces which shape tall buildings, still a relatively new form of structure, are fully understood so that the huge scale of construction which will be necessary can be handled effectively.
Although few reliable sources exist to adequately explore the legal implications of tall buildings, most of the information has been drawn from countries in Western Europe and the Unites States where, particularly in the latter, the interest and often obsession which has been generated by this building type has led to greater numbers of buildings, increased attention and, ultimately, better records.
THE NOTION OF CONTROL
All societies exert control over the actions of the individuals within their realm of influence to ensure acceptable levels of behavior for the common good. Once the process of construction reaches a point of sophistication where aspects of health and safety become concerns, it too becomes the subject of legislation. Although each society will control its built environment in various ways depending upon, for example, the amount of construction work or the type of government structure, it is likely that safety will be a major focus for attention. This may be expressed through the mechanism of civil law, providing legal outlets for those incurring damage to seek restitution from those responsible. Alternatively, it may insist on certain basic minimum levels of performance through statutes, transgression of which may lead to penalties available under criminal law as, for example, in France. More specifically, each country is likely to develop a system of restraints aimed at controlling the building itself rather than the actions and responsibilities of those who construct it. Such control is usually expressed not in statute form but in specific regulations and codes which address either the location of building types or detailed criteria for their required construction. Together, zoning and code control exert the major attributable influence on buildings in most societies.
Although many codes are concerned with building as a generic activity, the concept of tall building has for some authorities a special significance. The problems inherent in most building activities, the outbreak and spread of fire, escape by occupants, and firefighting are intensified in high buildings and are often the focus of careful attention. In addition, tall buildings are also associated with broader issues of traffic congestion, daylight, street-level quality and even health which may lead to further levels of control. The degree of control exerted by each country may vary from federal mandate (as in the former Soviet Union and its satellites) to mainly municipally generated regulation (United States). However, the parameters controlled, (and therefore the degree of impact by that control) may vary according to diverse criteria, including ownership (England and Wales), building type (Holland and West Germany), Ref.l population (India and some American cities in the 1920's), Ref.2 location (United States), size (Tropics) or simply height.Ref.3 Sometimes, specific criteria applicable to characteristics of tall buildings (such as fire prevention) may be integrated into the general building code (West Germany), be included in a separate section of the regulations (some American Model codes) or even form separate legislation (England and Wales). Buildings may have to conform to general criteria expressed in the form of functional requirements or performance specifications, or be directed by more specific regulations which give less freedom for individual initiative in design. With regard to achieving approvals from authorities, designers may have to deal with highly trained 'building police' (West Germany and Scandinavia) or relatively lowly qualified building inspectors (often drawn from the ranks of the building trades as in some areas of the United States) who may administer the regulations with varying degrees of creative interpretation or severity. Ref.4 Where location becomes a critical factor, tall buildings may be subject to control with regard to their height, shape, mass, appearance and even function, depending upon the source of control and the nature of approval necessary, whether in the matching of a specific requirement, the attainment of a special permission for exception (Berlin, for example) Ref.5 or the negotiation for building under certain conditions (New York), usually resulting in the provision of certain 'bonuses' for the city.
Although by no means a complete picture of control, the broad range of variables illustrated begin to highlight the complexity of building legislation and its possible influence upon the tall building. The following sections will attempt to trace the development of these controls and demonstrate their cumulative impact upon the contemporary skyscraper.
EARLY DEVELOPMENTS
IN LEGISLATING THE TALL BUILDING
Wherever an abundance of population has been coupled with a shortage of available land necessary to provide adequate shelter, buildings have necessarily expanded upward. The problems inherent in this activity have led inevitably to some form of restraint by the controlling authorities for the general safety and welfare of the inhabitants. Although no record of such control can be found with regard to the 16 story cave dwellings discovered in Cappodocia Ref.6 in ancient Turkey one of the earliest known forms of multiple occupancy, legislation dating back to the first century A.D. reveals that, due to the instability of prevailing construction techniques, apartment houses in both Rome and Ostia were limited to 6 or 7 stories. Ref.7 After a massive fire destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, new, stringent laws were enacted by the Emperor Nero to limit the height of dwellings to 70 ft. and to require concrete construction (as opposed to mud brick), limited use of timber and separate (not party) walls between 'insulae' of all 'high-rise' buildings. These regulations were later reinforced by Nero's successor, Vespasian, and the permissible height of buildings reduced to 60 ft. Ref.8
Although there are scant examples of building control until relatively recently, there are further indications of concern about the height of buildings throughout the centuries. The Assize of Fitz-Ailwyn, Lord Mayor of London in 1191 Ref.9 contains provisions directed towards the control of new structures and their 'prevention of view' of existing buildings, while edicts proclaimed in London during the fourteenth century included a number of fire precaution measures, including the restriction of height of habitable dwellings. The preoccupation with height, albeit minor by today's standards, continued to be a factor in most subsequent legislation, including proclamations in 1619, 1624, 1630 and 1636. The intensity of legislation during this latter period suggests a great concern for health and safety within the overcrowded city, a concern which was apparently well founded. The population of the city, exceeding 300,000 was being decimated by the plague which was claiming over 1,000 lives a week. This problem was largely solved, albeit tragically, by the Great Fire of 1666 which destroyed over two-thirds of the City. Subsequent legislation, beginning with the 1667 Building Act, continued to place restrictions on building height and became more effective in controlling fire and disease. Ref.10
Legislation in London during the eighteenth century shows perhaps one of the clearest examples of codes influencing architecture. Beginning with the Building Act of 1707 and reinforced by subsequent legislation in 1709, 1724 and 1774, buildings were again limited to specified heights, while further restrictions on the size of windows and doors, the use of certain brickwork and bonding, the abolition of wooden eaves/cornices, the rebating of frames into the wall and the limitation of bow windows radically affected the appearance of buildings. Ref.ll By outlawing many of the distinctive features of Restoration architecture, the new, rationalized appearance of facades (admittedly in keeping with the prevailing continental desire for aesthetic simplicity) came to be known as the Georgian style, a development based as much upon legal requirement as upon architectural theory.
Although much of the legislation concerning construction before 1800 is limited and piecemeal, the industrialization of many countries led to a proliferation in city building, and major advances in technologies appropriate to tall buildings. The following section is concerned with the early years of development relative to the high-rise building, and the forms of legislation which were implemented to deal with the special problems encountered.
THE BIRTH OF THE SKYSCRAPER
The focus of attention during the early development of tall buildings centered primarily around the American cities of New York and Chicago where they remained at the fulcrum of debate for many years, becoming 'a national obsession'. Ref.l2 While their proponents argued for the advantages of high-rise occupancy in terms of economy and style, there was an ongoing outcry against the detrimental effects of high buildings upon society. This debate was reflected in a number of publications and a call in 1894 by the Architectural League to abolish further construction of skyscrapers, which had become 'a plague.' Ref.l3
At a legislative level in the second half of the nineteenth century, most legal provisions were directed towards the prevention of inadequate technologies from endangering the occupants and neighbors. As new ideas were introduced such as the cast iron frame (1848), and the passenger elevator (1857),Ref.14 it became possible to reach hitherto unattainable heights and therefore density of use. This in turn created problems of outbreak of fire which caused particularly acute concerns with regard to spread of flame to other buildings, escape by occupants and the ability of firefighters to reach the blaze. Legislation took various forms in dealing with the problem. In New York, for example, the 1870 Building Code required all cast iron columns be fireproofed or be supported by a similar fireproofed column. All window frames had to be made of metal and mandatory street/height ratios observed. Ref.l5 Chicago had introduced legislation twenty years earlier which made no restriction on height, as long as the buildings were adequately fireproofed. Ref.l6 This involved the introduction of steel shutters to all windows to prevent spread of flame, wired glass to any openings on property lines other than the street, minimum wall thicknesses and specific depth and span ratios in construction. Ref.l7 The rigor of these provisions were attributable in part to the frequency of major fires in the city, primarily in 1848, '49, '57 and '69.
Other cities of sufficient size which began to experience upward growth also developed legislation during the period where technology permitted tall building. Boston dealt with the issue by imposing a mandatory height for all construction of 125' in the business sector of the city and 80' in the residential districts. Los Angeles set their limit at 150' or at 13 stories, while Baltimore limited construction at 175' and Indianapolis at 200'. Alternatively, Washington required that the height of buildings in a business street not exceed the width of the widest abutting street increased by 20 ft., but not to exceed 130 ft. Ref.l8 Height restriction was a pattern followed by many U.S. cities before 1916, although perhaps as many preferred to control their tall buildings by developing a mandatory height/width of street ratio.
A study undertaken in 1924 revealed that in the 16 cities studied, height was determined either in stories or in feet and that building 'bulk' or district may also have been used as determinants. Ref.l9 By contrast, the German city of Berlin treated their high-rises as special cases, requiring specific permission for exemption from the building police who were granted powers of control under the 1877 Building Act. Ref.20 However, legislation with regard to high-rise building to this point was geared primarily towards fire protection. As such, it was directed towards such elements as fire stairs, shutters and materials, but was primarily concerned with the limitation of height. Although a considerable factor in the final manifestation of each building, it is not until 1916 that legislation was developed to deal with the context of tall buildings in cities and which radically affected the very mass and shape of future skyscrapers. The next section is therefore concerned with the highly influential zoning law of New York City.
THE 1916 NEW YORK ZONING ORDINANCE:
LANDMARK LEGISLATION
The time has come when effort should be made to regulate the height, size and arrangement of buildings...in order to arrest the seriously increasing evil of the shutting off of light and as from other buildings and from the public streets, to prevent unwholesome and dangerous congestion both in living conditions and in street and transit traffic and to reduce the hazards and peril to life." Ref.21 Prior to 1916, most building legislation concerning tall structures was geared towards height or height/width of street ratios. Ref.22 Although a separate form of legislative control from building codes and one usually associated with the location of building types into occupancy areas, the 1916 Zoning Ordinance had a major influence upon the form of the tall building. It was introduced in New York City by the Heights of Building Committee to prevent the 'canyon effect' that, it was feared, would destroy the quality of streetlife and prevent daylight from reaching ground level. It was believed by many that direct sunlight was necessary to 'sterilize' the sidewalks, that its absence would cause an increase in disease and be hazardous to the eyes and that mental and physical efficiency would be impaired as a result. Ref.23 This echoed concerns not dissimilar to those voiced by legislators responsible for the 1844 Metropolitan Building Act in London, England which, in addition to subsequent legislation, affected the density and heights of buildings by the requirement of minimum areas of open spaces, courts and street widths. Ref.24
After 1916, New York was divided into height districts and specific formulas were drafted to establish the reduction of floor heights beyond specified stories. The outcome of these requirements was the familiar, stepped back, pyramidal form of the skyscraper, exhibiting a strong vertical axis. Although the appearance of the building envelope lent itself well to the artistic interpretation of Art Deco architecture, the shapes of new buildings followed the zoning requirements as closely as possible to achieve maximum floor area within the allowable envelope and represented, it is claimed, "A compromise between real estate values and hygienic necessities." Ref.25 The ordinance, although enforceable only in the City of New York, proved to be highly influential on tall buildings elsewhere in America.Ref.26
Although only 48 cites had zoning ordinances in 1921, the number had increased to 159 by 1923, 221 by 1924 and 320 by 1925, representing an overall population of 24 million city inhabitants. By 1927, 553 cities had adopted zoning ordinances, many of whom looked to the larger cities for direction. Of the 68 largest of these cities, Francisco Mujica, (whose 1929 study 'History of the Skyscraper' provides an excellent contemporary overview of the development of the building type) recorded that 52 of them, including New York, Chicago, St. Louis, Boston, Baltimore, Pittsburgh and Los Angeles, had implemented zoning regulations. Cleveland had an interim set of regulations by 1926 and was preparing a comprehensive set of rules to address height and area. New Orleans' regulations were relatively sketchy, although a comprehensive set were in preparation. Similarly, the authorities in Louisville were engaged in producing extensive zoning legislation, while Philadelphia and Detroit were actively undertaking zoning studies in preparation for the development of appropriate ordinances.
While individual city codes showed some variation, a study commissioned by the Secretary of Commerce suggested that the New York code provided the impetus and foundation for most zoning legislation in the United States in the early part of the century. (see Appendix A)
In addition, the highly publicized mass studies sketched by the artist Hugh Ferris demonstrating the potential forms possible under the new legislation became for many influential models of future development. Ref.27 Although undertaken primarily as a design demonstration guide, the highly evocative sketches became instrumental in forming architectural attitudes towards the design theory of tall buildings. Despite the plethora of legislation which had been introduced to control high-rise structure in the past seventy years, no single piece of legislation has wielded such influence upon design as the 1916 ordinance. As well as affecting the shape of new buildings, the required reduction of floor space, the enforced surrender of three-quarters of the lot area for floors over forty-three stories Ref.28 meant a loss of net rentable space of 34% on a 37 story building. This made the upper floors largely uneconomical and so also created a de facto height limitation for smaller building lots.
MODERN LEGISLATION
Since 1916, technology has expanded to enable vastly larger buildings than were envisaged at the turn of the century. In addition, cities have become more crowded, and the need for space more acute. Legislation has responded to these demands by attempting to provide maximum freedom to develop coupled with adequate precautions to maintain health and safety. New York, for example, radically shifted its philosophy of control in 1961 by moving to the sky exposure plane system, which introduced the concept of bonuses and incentives to replace the rigid 1916 ordinance. This enabled buildings to rise rapidly above their predecessors, creating the 'tower in the park' concept. By providing some public amenity at street level, buildings could occupy more space above, although the variations allowed made the '61 ordinance largely unworkable by 1980. Ref.29 Other cites or countries have tried to frame their legislation in the form of performance specifications rather than specific regulations, or have expanded their control to specifically allude to the concept of tall building, as in Berlin, which has now discontinued its former 'special permission' system. Ref.30
Despite many of the sophisticated innovations which have given designers greater freedom in design, such as liquid filled columns and flame shielding, fire and safety still remain major concerns. Ref.31 Today's high-rise reflects the quality of technology which has developed around it, but exhibits different problems from the early tall buildings. For example, its materials and contents may be less combustible and susceptible to destruction, but as most buildings are now sealed, there are greater problems of escape, adequate breathable air and the increased spread of flame vertically. Despite the improvements which have taken place in building technology, 12,200 lives are still lost each year in the United States due to fire, and nearly $3 billion worth of property destroyed. Ref.32
There have been a number of attempts to introduce nationally-mandated legislation such as the draft of the National Fire Prevention Act or the 1968 President's Commission on Fire Prevention and Control, which recommended one federal code. Despite some level of agreement between the model code agencies - ICBO, BOCA and Southern - to create a new section in their codes for buildings over 75 ft., the system of state delegated local control is strongly entrenched in the United States, and all attempts to coordinate building control measures have been unsuccessful. As a consequence, there are an estimated 18,000 separate codes currently in operation throughout the country, many of which are outdated and unresponsive to new technologies. Ref.33
Some countries with degrees of centralization, such as Canada which has a federally produced although locally adopted model code, can make generally effective improvements, such as the smoke control provisions recently introduced. Ref.34 However, in countries where centralization has been possible, tall buildings are controlled from a national base which ensure rapid transfer of new and potentially better technologies to all areas of each country. Problems with existing technologies, as evidenced in the Ronan Point Collapse in England in the 1960s, can be quickly removed to prevent further disasters as in this case with regard to progressive collapse. Such rapid and effective action is less likely in decentralized countries, so that disasters such as the San Paulo fire in Brazil in 1974 can have little immediate effect upon the national safety standards.
SUMMARY: CUMULATIVE LEGAL IMPACTS
UPON THE TALL BUILDING
Although not a particularly fashionable area of interest, it is clear that legislation upon tall buildings has, almost since its inception, exerted a major influence on their design beyond the provision of safety and health measures primarily intended. Despite the variations in control techniques, an examination of the vehicle of building regulation has demonstrated how the height, configuration and even facade appearance of buildings may be affected by their restrictions. In addition, codes have been shown to exert restrictive pressure which have been used to eliminate certain materials or construction methods, Ref.35 or even to prevent certain types of occupancy from entering the stock. Ref.36 Similarly, safety codes which affected areas of interest related to the tall building, as for example in window cleaning, will ultimately influence design--the 50 deaths a year attributable to window cleaning have led in past years to the requirement of the sash swing and the visually prominent cradle. Ref.37
The added requirements of zoning can have a profound influence on the shape and height and therefore stylistic massing of forms, even affecting the very location of buildings. In the latter case, there are examples of highly restrictive zoning requirements causing developers to move their proposed buildings to less onerous districts, such as the suburbs, thus changing the nature of the relationship between high-rise and site. Ref.38 The economic impact of zoning and building control requirements has been demonstrated, particularly with regard to height, Ref.39 while the enormity of cost to building owners was recently demonstrated in a New York law suit, where it was claimed that retroactive 'grandfathering' of all high-rise buildings to meet the new code would cost $100 million. Ref.40
To the composite implications of statutory control should also be added the responsibilities placed on designers by common law. In the highly litigious environment in which designers and owners operate, many problems may occur in complex buildings in terms of their failure or injury to their inhabitants, as evidenced by the highly publicized John Hancock Building in Boston. This is hardly an environment which encourages innovative design, but instead results in a conservative approach favoring traditional, 'safe' designs.
The relationship between law and tall buildings therefore is an extensive and complex one, illustrating the degree to which the latter are influenced by various legislative demands which impact upon their design. It is important that the extent of this influence is adequately understood so that the huge volume of tall building predicted by the end of the century can be handled both knowledgeably and effectively.
Material appearing in Architronic may be distributed freely by electronic or any other means, providing that any such distribution is without charge (unless for purposes of cost recovery by interlibrary loan services) and that Architronic is acknowledged as the source. However, no article may be reprinted in any publication without the explicit written permission of the author(s). This statement must accompany all distributions of Architronic, whether complete or partial.