Columbia University Libraries Digital Collections: The Real Estate Record

Real estate record and builders' guide: v. 87, no. 2235: January 14, 1911

Text version:

■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