Exhibitors Herald (Mar-Apr 1924)

March 29, 1924 EXHIBITORS HERALD XXI N. Y. Code Would Make Fireproof Theatres Unnecessarily Costly Says NORMAN M. STINEMAN Member, American Society of Civil Engineers I WAS greatly interested in the article in "Better Theatres" of March 1, containing some pointed remarks, originating with Mr. George E. Eichenlaub, a theatre architect of Erie, Pa., on the proposed New York State theatre building code. Mr. Eichenlaub's remarks were of especial interest to me for the reason that only recently I prepared a review of the entire proposed New York State Standard Building Code, including the sections pertaining to theatres. The proposed code is in fact a complete state building code, divided into three parts, the first of which is in the nature of a general building code affecting all classes of occupancy, while Parts II and III are confined more explicitly to theatres. ♦ * * Some readers may recall my article in the issue of February 2, 1924, entitled "How Fireproof Construction Can Be Had at No Greater Cost." Having sponsored that article, I was somewhat nonplussed to find Mr. Eichenlaub speaking rather disparagingly of fireproof construction. He had even gone so far as to place the word "fireproof" in quotations. In the very next paragraph, however, he relieved my mind and hit the nail squarely on the head when he declared that the first high cost of fireproof construction is often brought about by lack of recognition of some newer materials and fabrications. As a matter of fact the difficulty in obtaining officii.1 permission to use new materials and methods of construction, many of which are developed essentially as fire-resistants, is one of the most exasperating hindrances to progress in fireproof construction. Sometimes the fault may lie with the designer of the building, who does not keep himself informed as to developments in newer and less expensive materials or methods; but more often the trouble is due to an obsolete and restrictive building code which will not permit him to be progressive. He falls back on the old way of doing things "according to the building code," while the owner of the building has the pleasure of paying the price. Unfortunately the Underwriters are often slow to recognize new materials and methods which have not been actually tested out by their laboratories, so that the designer is confronted by another difficulty in the matter of insurance rates. In general, however, the Underwriters do recognize concrete as a fireproofing material and reinforced concrete as fireproof construction, so that the designer has considerable latitude in the selection of his materials. * * * I must admit that theatres that will not burn cannot be built as economically in first cost as buildings of combustible construction if some obsolete building code requires walls and partitions and floors twice as heavy as necessary and limits the choice of materials to one or two, arbitrarily excluding the use of equally good but less expensive ones. Here is one of the primary faults of the proposed New York Standard Building Code. The person or persons who wrote it make frequent use of expressions such as "brick or other approved masonry" and in many cases they have gone even so far as to say that such and such a wall "Better Theatres," through its advisory staff composed of experts in virtually every phase of theatre building and operation has brought to the attention of the industry certain features of the proposed theatre building regulations for the state of New York which, had they been enacted, would have wrought unfavorably toward the best interests of the small town theatres. Indications at present point that as a result of the publicity accorded the detrimental features of the code, many corrections will be made. Being a problem best understood by engineers and those directly connected with constructional problems, this department is glad of the opportunity this instance has given it to serve the welfare of theatre owners through the authoritative sources at its disposal Attention to the unfavorable features of the building regulations were first revealed in a discussion of them by Mr. G. E. Eichenlaub, theatre architect and engineer and one of the "Better Theatres" advisory staff members. In the accompanying article Mr. Norman M. Stineman, Member, Society of Civil Engineers, and also on this department's staff of experts, contributes further enlightment on the proposed regulations as they affect the interests of the small town builder. shall be of brick so many inches thick. Of course, the specific mention of brick, and brick alone, automatically bars out all other materials. This is a common fault of building codes. Curiously enough, Mr. Eichenlaub himself fell into the same habit when, in discussiner the requirements of the smaller theatre building, he mentioned the necessity of a cut-off wall between the stage and auditorium and between the stage and any adjoining structure. He remarked, parenthetically, that this "means a solid brick wall 12 inches thick." It might mean a brick wall; but if the bricklayers have the upper hand in a certain town and are exacting exorbitant wages, the architect may want to specify a wall of plain or reinforced concrete. Of course this was only a slip on Mr. Eichenlaub's part, but it shows how firmly rooted is the idea that brick is the one available material. A few illustrations will show how various building materials are completely ruled out in the proposed New York State Code, as now written, and how unnecessary wall thicknesses are specified. * * * Paragraph (c) of Rule 32, in Part 1, under the heading of "Limitations," specifies that "Walls of hollow building blocks [by which is meant concrete block or tile or clay tile] shall not be used in buildings over 40 feet in height, except that in buildings of skeleton construction terra cotta blocks with shells and webs not less than 1 inch thick, faced with at least 4 inches of brickwork properly bonded as speci fied in this section, may be used." Inspection of this requirement discloses the fact that this height limit of 40 feet is not limited to bearing walls, as might be expected, but is made to apply to nonbearing walls as well, and to the building itself. In other words, in a building 41 feet high nothing in the nature of hollow concrete block or tile or hollow clay or hollow gypsum tile could be used anywhere in the structure, not even for nonbearing partitions or exterior non-bearing panel walls supported at each story. If any one supposes that no such interpretation would be placed on this Rule, it is only necessary to remind him of the fact that the New York City building code contains a similar provision and that it is so interpreted by the Building Department of that city. Paragraph (e) of Rule 35 of Part 1 contains the following under the heading of 'Non-bearing Walls": The thickness of non-bearing walls may be 4 inches less than those specified, respectively, in sub-division (b) of this Rule for [bearing] walls of corresponding height, provided that no such wall shall be less than 12 inches thick. While the foregoing paragraph states that non-bearing masonry walls may be 4 inches less in thickness than the corresponding thickness specified for bearing walls, this supposed advantage is practically eliminated by the requirement making the minimum thickness 12 inches. As a matter of fact the minimum thickness for masonry walls and partitions of the non-bearing class should be 4 inches instead of 12 inches. A minimum thickness such as 12 inches is entirely uncalled-for and only adds to the cost of a structure without giving anything in return. * * * Another sub-paragraph under the same Rule states that exterior panel walls of skeleton structures supported at each story by girders may be 12 inches thick for the entire height of the building. This, of course, applies to all classes of buildings, not merely to theatres. The kind of wall under consideration is more commonly called a panel wall. It fills in the space between columns and floor girders in the outside walls of buildings having structural frames. Such walls are supported on wall girders at each story. They carry nothing but their own weight and serve their purpose when they keep out the weather and protect the structure against an outside exposure fire. A thickness of 12 inches seems particularly unjustified when we remember that a large part of this panel wall area is protected by nothing but panes of glass, Consequently what can be the necessity for filling the rest of the panel with 12 inches of masonry. A 4-inch reinforced concrete panel wall is ample, and is allowed by the cities of Pittsburgh, Seattle and Rochester. For masonry enclosure walls, such as brick, block and tile, 8 inches is ample and is allowed in many codes among them the code recommended by the U. S. Department of Commerce. Recognition should also be given to construction such as double walls of metal lath and cement plaster, or of gunite, a material which has been tested by the Underwriters' Laboratories and given a (Continued on next page)