As soon as these conditions appear, it is time to act. As already noted, it is not, in most cases, the desire to utilize a greater depth of lot which leads to the change, but the desire to get next to the sidewalk and to do away with a front yard which has served its purpose and is not wanted under the new conditions. If the street is one likely to have a considerable amount of through travel, it would be reasonable at once to lay it out wide enough to handle such travel; and the cost of the land taken for the widening would be charged, at least in part, to the abutters, for they get, by the change, what many of them already want and what the rest will soon be wanting—direct frontage on a busy sidewalk.
A still wiser course of procedure would be to determine on the widening of these future main thoroughfares before any buildings have been advanced to the sidewalk line, and to establish building lines far enough apart to leave room for all probable future requirements; but to make no physical widening of the street until the growth of travel—or the demands of the abutters—call for shifting the sidewalks over to the established building line and enlarging the roadway to correspond. This is the invariable practice in Washington and in most well-conducted European cities. It is the plan to some extent in New York, where just recently the sidewalks of Fifth Avenue have been moved back against the building line on the space formerly occupied by stoops, areaways, and dooryards. Pennsylvania Avenue and Sixteenth Street, in Washington, are both laid out 160 feet wide from building line to building line, although Pennsylvania Avenue is an important business artery and Sixteenth Street is a residence street without heavy traffic and with no commercial business. On the former, the wide sidewalks are in immediate contact with the fronts of the buildings, as is proper for a business street, and the roadway, with car tracks in the middle, is more than wide enough to carry all traffic that can ever be concentrated upon it. Whereas, on Sixteenth Street, the traveled portion of the street, including sidewalks and the space for sidewalk trees, is only 80 feet wide; and the remainder is occupied by front dooryards 40 feet deep, which the householders are at liberty to fence and use almost as freely as if they owned them in fee simple. At the same time all the householders are protected against the premature action of any individual lot owner who might see a possible advantage in being among the first to bid for a commercial business by building a flat-house with stores under it out upon the sidewalk line 40 feet in advance of the other houses. This is the sort of thing that is happening every now and then in Pittsburgh on streets where the great majority of the owners would prefer to have the set-back continued for some years longer. In Washington this crowding forward cannot be done; but when a reasonably large proportion of the owners on any street, or any block of a street, are ready for the change, the front yards are abolished and the sidewalk is moved over into contact with the buildings. If a single owner wants to put in a store long before his neighbors are ready to give up their front yards and long before the City is ready to widen the street to increase its traffic capacity, he is of course at liberty to do so; but he must not move forward of the general building line. What he usually does is to abolish his own front dooryard and substitute an extra wide piece of sidewalk paving in place of it, sometimes using the space for outdoor stands, or show cases, to attract trade. He may even be permitted to erect light temporary structures, such as awnings, on the space between his main building and the present sidewalk line, under which, in good weather, he can do a very good business.
There is, then, one course of action which overshadows, in permanent importance and in urgency, all other things that Pittsburgh could do at the present time for the improvement of its main thoroughfare system. That is to establish new building lines, at a suitable distance apart, along all of its present and prospective main thoroughfares which there is any prospect of being able to widen.
Pittsburgh, in common with other cities in Pennsylvania, has a remarkable power, which is of the utmost importance in connection with the intelligent control of its street development, but of which it has not hitherto taken adequate advantage; a power that appears to be denied to the cities of every other state in the Union, although effectively used in some other countries. Pittsburgh may legally lay out a street in anticipation of a future need, and yet postpone entering upon the land for construction or for opening it to the public. Until the city legally enters on the street, the owner of the land has the free use thereof, and he receives payment only when the opening takes place; but if, in the interim, he shall have erected any structure within the limits of the proposed street, he will receive no compensation therefor when the street is opened. Although similar laws have been declared unconstitutional in other states, this provision has been sustained in Pennsylvania, and the power has been effectively exercised in numberless cases since the middle of the last century.
Philadelphia has applied the same principle to street widenings, as for example in the case of Chestnut Street. The procedure is to define a building line, set back a certain distance from the street line, and to permit no new buildings to be erected in front of that line, but to pay damages only when the power to prevent the erection of a new building is actually exercised.
The Chestnut Street widening was authorized by legislation which provided merely that the street should be widened ten feet, without specifying the procedure or method of awarding damages.[7]
The procedure used in the widening, as above described, had apparently no other authority than the general acts under which Pittsburgh has proceeded in laying out new streets.[8] This application of those acts has been sustained by the courts. If it is held that a specific extension of the principle of the Act of 1871 to the widening of Chestnut Street was implied in the ordinance of 1874, under authority of the Act of April, 1870, and that it is not generally applicable to widenings, a general act so intending ought to be secured from the legislature.
In the Chestnut Street case existing buildings covered most of the space between the building line and the street line, and the exercise of the power, with the consequent accruement of damages, occurred in each case only when the original building was torn down by the owner and he was required to set the new building back to the new building line.
The same principle is equally applicable to those cases where the existing buildings are mostly or wholly back of the new building line; the damages becoming due in such a case only when a building permit for the erection of a new structure encroaching on the designated open space is actually withheld.
The advantages of such a method of procedure, in the case of those highways where all, or nearly all, of the buildings are now set back from the street and where a widening will ultimately be needed, are obvious and very great. In a large percentage of cases, where the street is still mainly residential, the majority of the abutters would welcome the establishment of a building line for their own protection from inconsiderate neighbors; just as the majority of people will pay higher prices for lots in a neighborhood that is protected by properly drawn restrictions for setbacks, etc., imposed by a land company. In a great many such cases abutters could be induced to waive any claims for damages on condition that the building line should be applied to the whole street. Furthermore, the actual net damages to be paid would be distributed over a long period, and a considerable proportion of them, in many cases, could properly be assessed on adjacent benefited property owners.