Columbia University Libraries Digital Collections: The Real Estate Record

Real estate record and builders' guide: v. 82, no. 2115: September 26, 1908

Text version:

September 26, 190S RECORD AND GUIDE 591 ESTABIJSHED-^J^ARPH£1^^1868. Dented to REft,L ESTHI. BU1LDI^'G AR,Ot(!TECTlJRE .KoUSEKOLD DEGGRfntSt B[;si>/ess Ati)Themes OFGETlER,ftl Ir/iERfsT. PRICE PER YEAR IN ADVANCE EIGHT DOLLARS Communications should be addressed to C. W. SWEET Published Every Saturday By THE RECORD AJVD GUIDE CO. President. CLINTON W. SWEET Treasurer, P. W. DODGB- Viee-Pres. Sc Genl. Mgr., H. W. DESMOND Secretary, F. T. MILLER Nos. 11 to 15 East Z4tl» Street, New Yorlc City (Telephone, Madison Square, 4430 to 4433.) "Entered at the Post Offiee at New York, N. Y., as sceond-elass matter." Copyrighted, 190S, by The Record & Guide Co. Vol. LXXXII. SEPTEMBER 26. lOOS. No. 2115 THE Municipal Art Society is reported to be in difficulties, and certain of its member are complaining about the way it has been managed and its funds expended. At bot¬ tom, however, probably the cause of the trouhle is not so much in the management of the Municipal Art Society as in the standing and the prospects of the municipal art move¬ ment. Five or six years ago that society, after years of per¬ sistent agitation, was apparently on the road to the accom¬ plishment of something in the direction of city improvement. It had aroused a certain amount of public interest in the matter. It had, temporarily at least, secured the cooperation of other public-spirited organizations, and finally it obtained tbe appointment by the Mayor of a City Improvement Com¬ mission and a small appropriation for its expenses. The appointment of this commission, however, for whicii it had long been agitating and working, availed little or nothing. The report of the Commission aroused little public interest, and in no single respect has its recommendations had any effect on the policy of the municipal government. The cause of an improved street plan and a better looking city has apparently less chance of maldng any substantial progress than it had five years ago; and such has heen its fate, in spite of the fact that the same cause has been making considera¬ ble headway in many other large cities of the country. THERE are many reasons for the failure of the Municipal Art Society to make any substantial progress in its work, but the most important of these reasons may be grouped under two heads. In the first place the cause of a more convenient and more beautiful metropolis has not re¬ ceived enough support from puhlic opinion to overcome the difficulties in its path; and in the second place these diffi¬ culties are considerably greater than those with which the advocates of similar improvements are confronted in the other American cities. Unquestionably there is no general public interest in New York in the so-called Municipal Art movement. The membership o! the society comprises about 1,000 people, and the names include many men of promi¬ nence in business and professional life. But the contribution of these gentlemen to the success of the movement is lim¬ ited to the payment of their annual dues. They have rarely participated actively in the management of the society and they have never employed their influence effectively on be¬ half of its cause. The officials of the society have been earn¬ est and hardworking men; but the most prominent archi¬ tects, lawyers and business men have been conspicuous only by their absence. And this lack of authoritative leadership has constituted a fitting symbol of the absence of a consider¬ able public following. It is a sad fact, but true, that Ihei public-spirited New Yorker has little interest in the appear¬ ance of the city. He is proud of New York, if at all, because of its big buildings, its bustling life, and the opportunities it affords for work and pleasure. The colossal industrial de¬ velopment of the city over-shadows in the public mind every other consideration. THE state of public opinion in relation to municipal art. being comparatively indifferent, it is no wonder that the cause has not been able to overcome the obstacles in its path. The major obstacle has always been and still is the' enormous expense of the proposed improvements and the meagerness of the resources which the local government can apply to the purpose. Fundamental in any plan of city im¬ provement is the widening of existing streets and the open¬ ing up of new streets; and these are precisely the kind of public works which are most expensive. The price of land in Manhattan is so high, particularly in the most congested districts, that the cost even of sniall street widening pro¬ ceedings is huge, and they are rarely pushed to a successful, conclusion. During the last ten years the street traffic has more than doubled, but the only change made in the street lines has been the widening of Delancey Street from the Bridge to Ihe Bowery. Responsible municipal officials, no matter how much they may believe in the necessity of a bet¬ ter street plan, do not dare to commit themselves to the ex¬ penditure of such enormous sums of money—particularly at a time when the credit of the city bas been strained, and when the borrowing power of the city is required for other improvements already underway. In fact it is safe to say that no important change in the street plan of New York is possible without the passage of at least two constitutional amendments. One of these amendments, by enabling the city to purchase more land than it needed in the immediate vicinity of an improved street, would help to diminish the cost of the improvement itself, because the city would proflt by its own work. The other would enable the city to bor¬ row the money it needed for an improved street system, and such an enabling power could be surrounded by any limita¬ tions in its exercise believed to be necessary in the public interest. There is no chance of the passage of such amend¬ ments in the near future, because, as we have said, public opinion still remains comparatively indifferent to the whole question. .Eventually, however, we believe that the problem of an improved street plan for Manhattan will force itself to the frent. Already the congestion of street traffic is arousing lively protests and causing much inconvenience to business, and in the course of another decade the increase in the number of trucks and motor-cars will absolutely de¬ mand soriie drastic action looking towards the widening of certain existing streets and the opening up of new ones. In the meantime the business prosperity of the city will suffer severely from the growing congestion. In spite of its pres¬ ent moribund condition, we believe that the cause of city improvement must eventually triumph, because of the busi¬ ness conditions of the utmost importance which are work¬ ing in its favor. THE announcement that the Building Commission favors the placing of.an effective restriction on the height of sl;y-scrapers is one of the most important to the real estate and building interests of New York which has been made of recent years. It does not follow, of course, that the Board of Estimate and the Board of Aldermen will accept the recommendations of the Commission, but in case these recommendations represent a conclusion which has heen gradually reached hy public opinion, they must prevail in the end. So far as the Record and Guide can make out, public opinion has, ou the whole, been coming to the decision that some restriction is necessary. Five years ago the demand for limitations was neither en¬ ergetic nor widely extended, but now that the maximum commercial height of buildings has jumped from about twenty-five stories to more than twice that number, the idea of the necessity of a legal restriction has evidently been growing in favor. At the same time there is no general dis¬ position to make the restriction so drastic as absolutely to prevent the erection of very, tall office buildings. It is rec¬ ognized that existing land values in the financial district and elsewhere are based in some measure upon the opportunity hitherto afforded to erect thereon' buildings of extreme height; and the injustice of taking wholly away from some real estate owners a chance which has been enjoyed by so many is not overlooked. On the other hand it can scarcely be denied that too many buildings from thirty to sixty stories high might seriously affect public health and safety. The divergent aspects of the matter have been well expressed in a recent report on tall buildings by a committee of the Board of Trade and Transportation. This committee does not wish to limit the height of buildings because it believes that the erection of sky-scrapers contributes to the economic use of land in lower Manhattan, and consequently to the economic, efficiency of the whole city. On the other hand the commit¬ tee recognizes that something must be done toward the preservation of light and air and towards more efficient fire protection. It considers that the worst fire danger comes from the large number of inflammable structures in the im-