■January i'4, 1911.





RECORD  AND  GUIDE





L47









ESTABUSHED-^ uyU^CHSLV^ 1658.
DnifeTEOp Re^L Estate.Bi]iLDifJb%ai'iTEeTiJl\E.HoiJsniou)DEGCif^TiotJ,
Biisit^ESS Alto Themes of Ge|JeraI. lHTtR.ESi.

PRICE   PER   YEAR   IN    ADVANCE    EIGHT    DOLLARS

Communications  should be  addressed to

C. W. SWEET

Published Every Saturday

By THE RECORD AND GUIDE CO.

President,   CLINTON W.   SWEET                        Treasurer, F. W. DODGE

Vlce-Pres. £ Gen!, Mgr, H. W. DESMOND         Secretary, F, T, MILLER

Nos.  11 to  15 East S4th  Street,  New Tork  City

(Telephone,   Madison   Square.  4430  to  4133.)

"Entered at the Post Office at Ncto York, ,V.   Y.,  as sccond-cla.^.^  )::a:icr."
Copyrighted,   1911,   by   Tho   Record   &   Guide   Co.





Vol. LXXXVTI.





JANUARY 14,  1911,





NO. 2235.





RIVERSIDE  PARK  EXTENSION.

REAL ESTATE interests on the West Side of the city
lying opposite Riverside Park will perceive in the joint
report of the Commissioner of Doclis and the Commissioner of
Parks, in another column, a new and surprising intention.
The public supposition for years has heen that the lands under
water opposite the park and beyond the tracks of the New
York Central lines would eventually be added to the park
and so greatly increase the enjoyment and benefit to be ob¬
tained by the public from what is already New York City's
crowning attraction. It is the only place north of the Bat¬
tery where the people can rightfully go to look out upon the
Hudson River am3 the rest of the world and at the same time
enjoy any sense of comfort and repose. Owned by the city,
these lands are under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Parks, except for a section having a width of three hundred
feet north and the same distance south of 96th street, and
a section extending five hundred feet north and five hnzidred
feet south of 79th street, which sections are under the juris¬
diction of the Department of Docks and Ferries for com¬
mercial purposes. But the report on the proposed reclama¬
tion of land between Slst and 129th streets appears to have
been written more with the idea of a commercial develop¬
ment after plans by the Dock Department than with the idea
of reclaiming the land for park purposes. In fact the park
extension is quite subordinated to the commercial develop¬
ment, although the report bears the signature of the Com¬
missioner of Parks as well as that of the Commissioner of
Docks and Ferries. It is proposed to build municipal docks
and municipal railroad tracks under municipal sheds—and
let the Park Department make the most that it can out of the
roof of the sheds. To prove that we have not misinterpreted
, the intention of the Commissioner of Docks, we note iiis rec¬
ommendation that in the revision of the Charter the present
legal status of the Riverside Drive water-front be modified
to admit not only of park improvement, but also of "such
commercial development as suitably combines with recrea¬
tion features," This is an entirely new proposition, one
which reverses or alters the purpose which the people had in
purchasing the laud under water opposite Riverside Park,
and it is one to which the attention of the real estate interests
affected should be directed. We do not for a moment be¬
lieve that the Commissioner of Docks, animated as he is by
a desire to enlarge the commercial advantages of the port,
would divert the property entirely from the purpose for
which it was purchased; but clearly a crisis has arisen in
the history of Riverside Park. If the Dock Department is ask¬
ing for permission to "sbed" the whole forty acres of re¬
claimed land, let this be understood before any change in the
Charter is made, and as it is evident that the land can be
reclaimed only concurrently with new Subway construction,
in order that sufficient material for filling may be obtained,
it is important that whatever plans are necessary for the
mere reclaiming of the land should be in readiness soon.





AN ARGUMENT OF THE  FIRST IMPORTANCE.

THE late advice of the Joint committee of the Chamber of
Commerce and of the Merchants' Association in favor
of an agreement with the Interborough Co. contained the
best statement which has yet been made in favor of such
a policy. It should carry considerable weight, because the
committee  consisted   of  both   able,   and   in   respect  to   this





matter, disinterested men. -It admitted frankly the deserved
unpopularity of the Interborough Co., but it refused to allow
considerations founded on this fact to outweigh the over¬
whelming advantages of its recent proposal of the Pubiic
Service Commission. Every railroad man knows that com¬
petition would be no cure for such unpopularity or the bad
service which has caused it. B'ut perhaps the best part of
the report was the argument that a single fare of five cents
over a united subway system would have tlie enormous
social advantage of distributing population evenly. That
is an argument which has not played an important part in
the discussion of the subject, but it is none the less an ar¬
gument of the FIRST IMPORTANCE. Two different subway
systems would mean that practically all poor people would
be confined to the limits of a single system for their regular
travel, and such a hampering of their freedom of move¬
ment would undoubtedly make for congestion. The criti¬
cism made by the report,on the Triborough system is also
drastic and conclusive. It is perfectly obvious that if., a
competitive system were built it should be made to cost as
little as possible, and should contain a lower West Side and
•as well as an upper East Side line. A large part of the
delay and misdirected effort of the past few years has been
due to the abandoinment by the Public Service Commission
of the policy of the old Rapid Transit Commission, which
looked in the direction of building a competing system that
would serve both of the neglected parts of Manhattan—al¬
ways providing, it could not obtain proper terms from the
Interborough Co. As soon as it is recognized that whatever
is done the city cannot afford to take the risk of building the
Triborough system, the atmosphere will be beneficially
cleared.





UNFAIR TO THE CITY.

ONE criticism made by the Joint Committee of the Cham¬
ber of Commerce and the Merchants' Association upon
the proposed agreement with the Interborough Co. was un¬
doubtedly well taken. The terms of the operating con¬
tract of the Fourth Avenue subway in Brooklyn should not
be allowed to stand. They are open to the same objection
which the Record and Guide urged against Mr. McAdoo's
proposal. According to the Interborough Company's pro¬
posal, the city takes all the risk of building the road and
gets only one-half the profits. It should get all the profits
until it has been compensated for all deficiencies, and there¬
after the profits should be shared in proportion to the com¬
parative amounts of capital invested by the two contracting
parties. The Interborough Company would be 'abundantly
compensated for operating the line even on those terms,
because all extensions make traffic for the rest of the sys¬
tem. The matter is of a good deal of importance, because
in case an agreement with the Interborough Co. Js reached,
other extensions will probably be built and operated on simi¬
lar terms. The fair form of contract should be determined
now and should be adhered to hereafter. Moreover the
city should deliberately adopt a policy of using any profits
which it may obtain from the operation of the subway sys¬
tem for the purpose of giving means of communication to
undeveloped districts. The most complete and even distri¬
bution of population that can be brought about is the great
necessity of New York, and it would be as beneficial to the
morals of the city as it would to its health and pocket.





ECONOMY IN UNIFIED OPERATION.

ONE reason why the existing subway is so very profit¬
able is that it is not obliged to haul as many empty
cars as is usually the case with Manhattan transit companies.
During the rush hours the Brooklyn extension enables it to
pick up passengers both coming and going. The trains which
take the Manhattan worker up-town at five o'clock collect
a great many Brooklyn passengers on their return trip—
passengers who work in all parts of Manhattan, but live in
Brooklyn. That is undoubtedly, one reason why the cost
of transporting one passenger is less now than it ever was
in the history of the company-—amounting, indeed, to but
slightly over two cents. Such a low cost of transportation
would not have been possible in case the Brooklyn subway
had been operated by another compamy^say the Brooklyn
Rapid Transit Company. This is merely one illustration of
the general fact that unified operation of a city's rapid tran¬
sit system is both more economical than divided operation
and more convenient to the public. A low operating cost
on the subway is not, of course, of any benefit to the city
at present, but it will be of benefit after the new subways
are built, because under any arrangement the city will share