crown CU Home > Libraries Home
[x] Close window

Columbia University Libraries Digital Collections: The Real Estate Record

Use your browser's Print function to print these pages.

Real estate record and builders' guide: v. 80, no. 2073: December 7, 1907

Real Estate Record page image for page ldpd_7031148_040_00000953

Text version:

Please note: this text may be incomplete. For more information about this OCR, view About OCR text.
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