Remember that for these two charts the buildings destroyed are not necessarily the new buildings whose value is given. The black area represents only the value of buildings destroyed whether new or old. Note the Ben Day shading on the upper ends of the bars and the figures for the data from which the chart was made

GRAPHIC METHODS

28.60 28.40 28.20

30.40 30.30

~~

f7

Tir

n

~

_

u...

_

p,.

_

TiTUii oifti

Ut|

--

--

\--

r

_

L_

1 -- 1

li)tv.

1 \

at'cr

,

--

-- '

StieanT

irfessVir'e

)f~X-

ns>

</

"l

r^'

/■

"

k>

r^

/

"i

-oJ

Z'

S.

j-rf

S^pilrh

ea^

^

<A

\

^

w^

■cr-

"^ KI/IT

Vac

lum

N,

o^

rH-

cr^

r^

o^

•J~.

r°"

o-<

-o.

n>

fj

cw

r*

^

Lor

"ia

■o

=netei

\-

--

H-

--

--

o-

--

-

■■'

tapering form of the horizontal extension of the peak would be understood by even the untrained reader, much more certainly than the chart as shown here with only the figures to indicate the full extent of the loss which occurred in the San Francisco fire.

While Fig. 110 gives some general idea of the proportion which American fire losses bear to the value of new building construction, the two fluctuating curves make it difficult for the reader to make an estimate of the percentage losses year by year. Fig. Ill supplements Fig. 110, and gives for each year the total values for new building construction and the total values of buildings destroyed by fire. Here the percentages of the fire loss are quite obvious when judged by the extent to whi'ch the black ink covers the shaded bar representing new building construction. Figures are given in each case for the reader who may care to work out the actual percentage ratios.