December 7, IW        RECORD     AND     GUIDE





915









ESTABUSHED-^ftfcRPHSL^'^ieSS.
DEVÔTĨÛ F) R!cA,LESTAJE,B[IlLOIlfc ftppíITECmínE.KoUSQÍOlDDEGOĨifTlOIÍ.

Birsiíteas'AfÍDTHEHEsoF'CEífcR^V Ijrto^si.:

PRICE   PER  YEAR   IN ADVANCE   EIGHT   DOLLARS

ConmiuaicatioBB sliculd be addressed to

C. W. SWEET

Publisbed EVers/ Saturdag

By THE RBCOBD AND GIJIDE CO.

Prcsldent,   CLINTON  W,   SWEET                        Treasuror,  F.  W. DODGB

Vice-Pres.  & Genl,  Mgr., H. W. DESMOND         Secretary. F. T. MILLER

Nos.  11   to  15 East 24th  Street, Ncív  York  Clty

(Telephone,   Madlson   Square,  4430  to  4433.)

•■Entcred at the Post Office at New York, N.  Y.,  as S(et>niĩ-clii.3s  maltrr."





Copyrighted,   1007.   by  Tlie  Record   &  Giiide  Co.





Vol.   LXXX.





DECEMBER 7,  1907.





No.  2073.







INDEX   TO   DBPARTMENTS.
Advertislng  Section.

Page.                                                    Fage,

Cement   .......................xvi Lumber   .....................xvli

Clay Products   ................xlii  Machinery   ..................xlv

Consultlng  Englneers   .........xv Metal  Work   ...................xli

Contractora    and    Builders.....iv Quick   Job   Directory...........ix

Electrical   Interests   ...........xv Real   Estate    ..................vii

Fireprooflag   ...................il RooEers & Rooflng Materials.xvIIi

Granite....................xix Stone    .....................xvlll

Iron   and   Steel................vi Wood  Products   ..............xvii





IN A RBCENT NUMBER OF the "Architect-
ural Record" illiistrations sliowiiig designs of
the Hudson Memorial Bridge were published,
and certain strictures were made upon the
Art Coinraission whîch disapproved the
original design considered at meetings
held oa July 5th and Ĩ9th, 1906. In matters of opinion, of
eourse, there is roorafor alraos-t infinite iatitude, but in raat-
ters of fact that is not the case. The design pubĩished in the
article in the "Architectural Record" is not tĩie design which was
acted upon by the Art Coramission. On November llth, 1907,
new designs for the bridge were stibmitted and discuased, aniĩ
wiU again be brouglit up for action at the meeting to be held
on December lOtli. It is the opinion of experts who have com-
pared the two de&'igns that the later design is greatly superior
to the earlier. Coraraissioner Stevenson also concurs with the
jiidgment of the experts, for, at a meeting lie thanlted the Com-
raission for the rejection of the flrst design, wiiich made a very
raiich happier aolũtion of tĩie problem possible, In regard to
the designs for the "Hell Gate Bridge," they were dealt with at
the meetings of the Commission held on Jiine llth and June
27th, 1907, and after fiill d!Scns&-ion were disapproved in the
following terms: "The proposed Hell Gate Bridge is a raomi-
raental structure which will be visible frora far and wide. It
furnishes an unusuaĩ opportunity for artistic treatment. The
pĩans have been prepared by a distinguished engineer, Mr.
Gustav Lindenthal, Had th^se plans been purely striictural and
had the treatraent of thisbridge in all its partEr been strictly
titilitarian, your Coramittee would nevertheless have recora-
mended the approval of the plans, though they would have
regretted that thís opportunity for artistic treatraent had not
been availed of. They are quite ready to aecept the judgraent
of Mr, Lindenthal on all engineering or structural questions. It
has been atterapted, however, to give decoration to the towers
and to the bases of the towers. This attempt has not, in the
opinicTn of your Committee, been satisfactory from an artistic
point of view, Your Committee cannot approve tbes-e decorative
features, as they wouM have been ready to approve a strictĩy
utilitarian construction, or better still, a scheme of ornaraenta-
tion which would seem to them artistic and appropriate. They
therefore recoramend disapproval of the plana without prejudice
to their resubmission witĩi a difEerent treatment of the towers
and their bases."





The

Error

Corrected





IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING facts it is

hardly fair for tlie "Architectitral Record" to

say that in either ca&e there was a "blunt

unreasoned   rejection."    The   writer   of   the

article  in   question   probably  was  familiar

with one-haif the story, but had missed or

overloolíed the later history of the Art Coraraission's action in

regard to  the two bridges,    There is absolutely no reason- for

sayiug that the two raost interestíng projects of the Art Cpin-





mission had been the one defeated and the other indefinitely
postponed.    Thig   statement  is  contradicted  by  the  fact  that
the designs of the Hudson Memorial Bridge in greatly iraproved
forra are now before the Coraraission, to be acted upon at their
meeting next weelt, and designs for the other bridge have been
in effect approved as far as all engineering questions are in-
volved,   and   are   subject  to   revision   as  to  the   architectural,
details, which will be considered by the Commisslon as 'soon as
they are presented.   While spealdng upon this subject it might
not be amiss to turn to a raore generai phase of the raatter.
The pubíie to-day should give raore attention than it does to the
worlí of the Commission, which deserves more hearty snpport
tlian  it actually receives.    Of course we have all accorded  to
tlie Comraission a species of general benediction and that vague
approvai which we are always ready to bestow upon a moral
or  intellectual   project,    Tbis,   while  all  very  well,   is  by  no
raeans suíBcÍent to raeet the fu!l merits of the case.    The Art
Coramission is not merely a disinterested body of public spirited
individuals (it includes Robert "W, de Forest, Howard Mansfield,
George  B.  McClellan,  J.   Pierpont  Morgan,  John  Bigelow,  A.
Augustus Healy, Franlt D. Millet, ,ĩohn J. Boyle, John B, Pina,
Arnold W. Brunner, John Quincy Adams, Alice S. Clarlí), but
is to-day the working realiaation of one of the best possibilities
of oiir civic life.    The Comraission does its work ungrudgingly
without compertsation, and if at first its greatest usefulness has
been   negative   or   merely   corrective—suppressing   undesirable
prodUGtions and raising, by advice and counsel, the quaíity of
worlt actually  permitted to be  carried out, we  raust also not
forget that its positive achieveraents have not by any raeans
heen inconsiderable.    The Coramission is not worltíng at pres-
ent under ideal conditions; its diffleulties are complex and per-
plexing.    Under more libera! esthetic circumstances much more
could be accoraplished, but it raeans rauch in the comraunity
to possess a thoroughly conipetent oíflciai body of disinterested
nien,  publicly  representing  a sound  standard  of pubĩic taste.
Our citizens have only to heartily and actively support a com-
raission of this character in order to realize the highest possi-
bilities at any raomQnt attainable.





Three

Importaiit

Particulars





THE COMMITTEE ON BUILDINGS of the
Board of Alderraen, acting in conjunction
with a body of experts in building iines of
its own selection, has snbraitted for adoption
a complete revision of tlie Building Code,
with the exception of the sections relating
to fire liniits, which are raade the subject of a separate report,
As certain of the provisions restrict the height of huildingg,
these are to be subraitted for approval to the Board of Estiraate
before being passed upon by the Alderraanic board, and the
reports have been laid over for two weeks, Though there is
uncertainty as to what the fate of the new Code wili be at the
hands of the Aldeí-men, in view of the approaching reorganiza-
tion of the Board, and the reported intention of the opposition
to have it referred to a new coramission for further revisîon,
it is iraportant to note the changes that have been raade in the
three particulars that have clairaed the most public attention;
(1) fireproof wood, (2) height and area of buildings, and (3) the
fire liraits, It wiĩĩ be recalled that the primary cause for under-
taking the revision was an effort made by the builders and
architects of the city to have the corapulsory requirement for
fireproof wood eliminated, and that Mayor MeCIelÍan, in veto-
ing a resolution to this effect, w'hich had been passed by the
Board of Aldermen, recomraended a revision of the whoĩe Code.
The d§cision of the revisers in this respect is that no woodwork
whatever shall be used in any of the partitions, furrings or
ceilings of fireproof huildings, but ordinary wood may be used
under certain limitationsr in buiĩdings not exceeding one hun-
dred feet high. Regarding building height, the raaximura is
íixed at two hundred feet, except in cases where the building
shall have such offsets, yards and courts în excess of the regu-
lations that the cubage of the building shall not exceed one
hundred and seventy-four times thé area of the lot. This is
the limit for hotels and oflice buildings. Other flreproof bnild-
ings may not exceed one hundred feet, buildings of mill con-
struction 85 ft, and church spires 90 ft. The fire ĩimits in the
Bronx are advanced to the Pordham and Kingsbridge roads, but
with the understanding that the er^ction of frame dwellings,
limited to forty feet in height and three thousand square feet
floor and not occupying raore than eighty per cent. of the width
of the lot, shall not be interfered with. Sirailar exceptions In
favor of frarae dwellings are made for the other boroughs also,
except Manhattan. Subject to a fuller expression of public
opinion in regard to the bulĩding height, for which the Board.
of Egtlmate wlll glve an opportunity, the Coramisslon seems









mk