Real  Estate   Record





AND BUILDERS' GUIDE.





Yol. XX.





NEW YOEK, SATUEDAY, NOYEMBEE 17, 1877.





No.  505.





PiMislied Weekly by

TERMS.
ONE YEAR, in advance....$10.00.

Communications shotUd be addressed to

C. W.  SAVEET,

Nos. 345 and 347 Broadway.





LOT OWNERS.
We make this distinction between lot owners
and lot speciUators, that the former, as a class,
own their lots free of incumbrance, or but light¬
ly incumbered, whUe the latter, as a rule, own no
more than a smaU margin of ten or twenty per
cent of value, the remainder of the investment
being represented by mortgages. A fm-ther dis¬
tinction may be drawn in regard to the character
and purpose of these two ownerships. The one
representing inherited or capitalized wealth,
forms a fraction oiUy of the owner's entire wealth,
the portion thus invested being commonly held in
the contemplation of permanent or prolonged
ownership. Capital thus diverted is analagous to
deposits in trust companies at low interest, or to
investments in govermnents, with this difference,
that whUe the latter are productive of a low rate
of interest, the investment in vacant land may be
whoUy unproductive of income, and involve a
sinaU outgo in the way of taxes and assessments
—an experience which the investor wUlingly in¬
curs for the sake of the guarantee of safety for
the principal sum. Such investors rarely look
for an early or profitable realization. In fact the
majority of them are whoUy indifferent to the
matter of sale, preferring to bequeath such vacant
property to their heirs. In many cases the lands
have already been described and devised in exist¬
ing wiUs, which the owners are reluctant to disturb
or modify. Hence they are apt to turn a deaf
ear to all appUcations for purchase. Such lands
are sometimes leased for long terms, but rarely
sold.

The lot speculator, on the contrary, pm-chases
with exclusive reference to an early and quick re*-
turn, prolonged ownership being fatal to his
scheme. Hence the speculators are apt to be the
most eager seUers, on either a rising or a faUing
market.

We might select at random from the owners of
vacant properfcy on Fifth avenue, a considerable
number, aU typical of the idea which we have here
presented. Such for example, as the Paran Stevens,
the WUlet Stevens, and the Winthrop estates,
George Kemp, Robert Bonner, Mrs. Schley, Col.
Hammersley, aud R. and A. L. Stuart • and, as
the owners of promiscuous properties, the Astor,
Goeiet and Rhinelander estates. The properties
belonging to these o\yners are rarely or never
urged for sale, and a proposition for purchase
must conform strictly'.^p the owner's standard of
valuations, if at aUlikely to be entertained.

These grandee owners are the veritable break¬
waters of valuation, and we might say of build¬
ing improvements. In their policies and action
they distinguish the real eatate of New York
above that o£ any other American city, aud pre¬





sent striking analogies to the ownership of land
in the city of London, where property has been
vested in famUy titles for centuries, and is likely
to remain so for the ages to come. To such own¬
ers it would be superogatory for us to attempt to
tender either counsel or instruction.

But there is another type of lot owners exceed¬
ing in number those we have just described, al¬
though their individual possessions may be far
less in value or extent. These are persons who
have deliberately invested a portion of theii-
wealth in vacant property with the avowed pur¬
pose of holding it for an indefinite time, or at aU
events, untU a satisfactory price can be realized
for it, ultunate sale being their objective point.
Some of these were fortimate enough to make
their inve.stments before the great rise in real
estate, upon a plane of values which would be
considered low to-day, after the marked depres¬
sion which has succeeded the panic of 1873. Others
again, were carried away with the vagaries of
the speculators, and the iUusions of inflation, and
invested at high prices, such as seem now impos¬
sible of reaUzation for some time to come, if ever.
Nevertheless, their investments are free from
mortgage debt or aiTears of taxes and assessments
and afford the quaUfied satisfaction that there is
a certain modicum of value left, albeit only a
fraction of the original sum expended.

AU owners are doubtless at present deploring
their faUure to reaUze the highest prices whUe
they were to be had, and are puzzled in a greater
or less degree at the present time, to detemune
what final disposition shall be made of their lots.
A singular paradox or eccentricity of tempera¬
ment is often found to exist in the case of such
owners as we are describing. The very strength
of their position—^the absence of aU incumbrance
upon their property—in too many cases proves
an element of weakness by creating a power of
resistance which leads them to forego favorable
opportimities for selUng, simply because the of¬
fers made do not conform to the individual stand¬
ard of values which they set up. It is frequently
the experience of brokers and intending buyers
whoTattempt; to purchase property of such
owners, upon proposing a price nearly, if not
quite up to that which is asked, to meet either
with a point blank refusal, or to be greeted with
the inteUigence that the price has been advanced
ten or twenty per cent. This eccentricity of
strong lot owners proverbiaUy leads them to un¬
derestimate an offer. The fact of a proposition
being made to them, or perhaps the mere appear¬
ance of a proposed purchaser, seems to act upon
them as a stimulating tonic, enhancing their
views of their property and fiUing them with the
apprehension that by accepting the proposal
made, they may fail to realize fuU value. It is
idle to argue against this predisposition of prop¬
erty holders ; their own experience must be their
monitor in aU such matters, A mild infusion of
a true jnercantUe spirit in the minds of such
owners would often save them from unpleasant
predicaments, and from idle repinings over lost
opportunities.

It is, however, the conceded privUego of aU
citizens ol a R&publio to place theif own estimate
of value upon thwir possessions.  To off-set resis¬





tance to demand when it is developed, they are
obUged to exercise their perogative of holding
their property indefinitely. Multitudes are in
the dUemma to-day of an enforced, participation
in the enjoyment of one or both of these privi¬
leges.

We addi-ess our present remarks to those only
who are sincerely seeldng outlets for vacant prop¬
erty, or some disposition of it other than aUow¬
ing it to remain idle and unproductive.. Two al¬
ternatives present themselves, either to seU or to
improve. The proposition to improve prop¬
erty is becoming every day a naore feasi¬
ble and attractive one. The prices of ma¬
terials and labor were never so low in com¬
parison with the prices that improved prop¬
erty realizes, or its capacities of producing re¬
turns in the way of rent. Good and responsible
builders stand ready to enter iuto contracts for
the improvement of property at figures which
ought to be sufficiently tempting to capitalists.
The demand for improved property of all kinds,
especiaUy moderate priced dweUings and flats, is
highly encouraging. Provided the lots are
marked at the true value of to-day, the loses on
them, if any, being charged off, the results of their
improvement in the Ught of present events and
future prospects—it seems to us-^woiUd be highly
satisfactory and beneficial to the present owners.
But, as a rule, the investor in lofcs is apt to cherish
a repugnance to the care of improved property,
and hence, however, attractive this alternative
may be on paper, in practice it fails to meet with
favor on the part of such owners.

The other alternative is that of selling, and
here the opportunity is afforded of offering
sound counsel to those who enter the market for
this pm-pose. A cash sale—that is, one in which
the owner would reaUze the entire price in money
without trusting to any mortgage reclamation—
would in the majority of cases be the most ac¬
ceptable disposition. But the drawback to this
method is that few buyers, especiaUy among
buUders or speculators, are able to part with
the necessary amount of ready money, and when
cases occm" of such readiness, the price is apt to
be gauged to so low a point as to render ifunac-
ceptable to the owner. Even the condition of
leaving a goodly percentage of the purchase
price in the way of mortgage, fails to offer the
reqmsite inducement to buUders, unless the price
is made to conform to the cash standard. The
principal demand for lots for improvement comes
from buUders, who also expect an inducement in
the way of a buUding loan to facUitate their
operations in erecting buildings, and ifc may be
safely predicted that* in order to realize a price
greater than the cash valuation, it is indispens¬
able for the lot owner to accompany his offer'
with a proposition to lend njoney. It is precisely
at this stage of a negotiation that the utmost dis¬
crimination and inteUigence are needed for the
safe consunamation of a transaction. A large
ioan wUl usuaUy induce the offer of a large price
for the property, but wUl algo be attended with a
corresponding risk—a I'isk that too o|teu out¬
weighs the^seeming benefit,

Probably the most satisfactory disposal, all
things being considered, that lot owners could





i I