Part 1
Produced by Linda Cantoni and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
DOWN TOWN BROOKLYN
A Report to the Comptroller of the City of New York on Sites for Public Buildings and the Relocation of the Elevated Railroad Tracks now in Lower Fulton Street, Borough of Brooklyn
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK MCMXIII
CONTENTS
LETTER FROM THE COMPTROLLER REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE First Plan Second Plan Third Plan Fourth Plan Fifth Plan Sixth Plan ADDITIONAL REPORT SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
LETTER FROM THE COMPTROLLER
April 18th, 1913.
_Dear Mr. Pratt:_
It appears to me that the time has now arrived when some definite policy should be formulated regarding a number of needed improvements in the Borough of Brooklyn, with particular reference to a settlement of the court house, bridge terminal and other questions. We have had considerable discussion regarding these matters, and while this discussion has developed, as it naturally would, many divergent views, I am confident that it has also served a most useful purpose because now we all have a much better idea of the work that has to be undertaken and the importance of intelligent and united action governing it.
It is very necessary that some one should take the lead and I, therefore, suggest that you endeavor at the earliest possible time to effect a meeting of those interested as citizens and officials in developing the best plan for Brooklyn's improvement, with a view to having a definite policy proposed and so determined at this time that the only thing necessary in the future will be the authorization of the funds to carry the plan into effect.
There should be a civic center in Brooklyn. We have a nucleus of such a center in the present Borough Hall. We need a new terminal for the Brooklyn entrance of the Brooklyn Bridge, a better approach to that bridge by the present elevated railroad lines, the removal of the elevated railroad tracks from lower Fulton Street, a new court house, a new municipal building and a thorough improvement of that section running from the intersection of Myrtle Avenue and Washington Street to the terminal of the Brooklyn Bridge, using this improved section for the purpose of carrying out a general beautification of the proposed civic center.
All of these things cannot be done at once, but they are all a part of what should be a general plan. I believe that if the subject be approached in a spirit of civic patriotism a general plan can be developed which will mean the ultimate procurement of all these much-needed improvements, and in such a way as to be of the greatest benefit to Brooklyn as a borough.
Yours truly,
WILLIAM A. PRENDERGAST, _Comptroller_
MR. FREDERIC B. PRATT Brooklyn, New York
* * * * *
Upon receiving the foregoing letter, Mr. Pratt conferred with a large number of officials and citizens interested in the progress of Brooklyn, and acting upon their advice formed a committee of ten, believed by him to be representative of the various points of view, for the purpose of making a systematic study of the problems set forth and to formulate a report with definite recommendations. The report and recommendations of the committee appear in the following pages.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE
OF TEN CITIZENS OF BROOKLYN APPOINTED AT THE SUGGESTION OF WILLIAM A. PRENDERGAST, COMPTROLLER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
Since the appointment of this committee on the 30th day of April, 1913, it has had frequent meetings, conferences and hearings. Conferences have been had with representatives from organizations that have given time and study to the subjects within the scope of this committee. Several public hearings were held, notice of which was given in the public press. Written communications have been invited from all persons interested. Architects have been employed to advise and we have had the help of competent engineers.
At the outset the committee has been compelled to recognize the situation of Brooklyn and its relation to Manhattan and Greater New York. Brooklyn has always labored under the disadvantage that, although its residents have helped create the great assessed valuations in lower Manhattan, it did not before consolidation receive any benefit from the taxation of those values. In this respect Brooklyn was not and even now is not like independent cities such as Buffalo, Cleveland or Chicago, where both residences and office buildings contribute alike to support the same municipal government. Prior to consolidation on January 1st, 1898, Brooklyn had reached the limit of her constitutional borrowing capacity. The city needed many new schools and more bridges and tunnels across the East River. Along with many disadvantages that flowed from consolidation, there came the great advantage that Brooklyn at last received a portion of the tax money raised on the real estate in lower Manhattan, to which Brooklyn people had helped to give a high value. It must, however, be recognized that Manhattan is the central borough, and that as the business and municipal center of Greater New York she is entitled to pre-eminence in buildings to transact the city's business. Now that the boroughs constitute one city, Manhattan must help to give the outlying boroughs those utilities that their growth reasonably requires, and the outlying boroughs must recognize Manhattan as the business and official center.
For the last twenty years the industrial population in Brooklyn has been greatly increasing. Officials and loyal citizens who desire that the historic character of Brooklyn should be preserved cannot afford to wait ten years before a beginning is made to brighten up the downtown district. Continued migrations of home owners from Brooklyn to New Jersey and to counties outside of Greater New York may weaken the ability of the borough to preserve its entity and character. If it should once become a somewhat neglected industrial annex of Manhattan, the result would be injurious both to Brooklyn and Manhattan. No greater calamity could happen to every part of Brooklyn than to have the borough lose its civic pride.
When we add to the foregoing considerations the fact that Greater New York has nearly reached the constitutional limit of its borrowing capacity, we should not delude ourselves into thinking that persistent and long-continued demand will bring indefinite millions of dollars to Brooklyn in the near future. The vast contemplated expenditure for rapid transit railroads brings a share to Brooklyn, but even to validate the dual rapid transit contracts it was necessary to dedicate to subways $50,000,000 out of the $65,000,000 of self-supporting dock bonds exempted under the recent constitutional amendment, while we in Brooklyn know that more than $15,000,000 are needed for dock improvements in Brooklyn alone during the next ten years. In order to obtain a sufficient margin within the debt limit, assessed valuations have been placed at full value, and in some cases beyond prices that property will bring in the open market. Until the comprehensive rapid transit plan is completed in the course of four to six years, it cannot be expected that there will be a substantial increase in assessed valuations, taking the city as a whole.
With all of these considerations before us we have concluded that the strictest economy must be observed in improving the downtown district of Brooklyn, and that every dollar expended should be not only of the greatest use for the special purpose to which it is put, but also that every dollar expended should give co-ordinated results. Therefore we consider that such lands as are taken for public buildings should also contribute toward the opening up and improvement of the central business locality.
Outside of money for rapid transit lines, docks, schoolhouses and street improvements, it is not likely that the Borough of Brooklyn will within the next eight years receive any substantial sums except for the new municipal building and a new court house. If these buildings are placed in isolated locations where they have no relation to one another nor to the borough center, it will be most unfortunate. Like the Academy of Music, which is surrounded by narrow streets, they would confer only a partial benefit. Therefore the question of their location is more than finding a good spot for a court house or municipal building. The problem is to find locations that will be convenient for the public business, have a relation to each other and other public improvements, and contribute to the acquirement of more open space where it will do the most good.
We think that the Borough Hall locality should be preserved and improved as the borough's municipal center. Some say that we should look to Eastern Parkway, some to Flatbush Avenue Extension. But Borough Hall Park is the old-time and long settled center. The large office and financial buildings are there. It is convenient of access from every part of the borough. Every new rapid transit line will be directly connected with it. It is opposite the district of corresponding use in Manhattan. It is separate from the congested shopping district and will undoubtedly remain so. Some advocate Flatbush Avenue Extension as the best place for new buildings. The future value of the Extension even for public buildings cannot be denied. Canal Street, Manhattan Bridge, the Extension and Flatbush Avenue furnish a continuous broad thoroughfare from the North River to Jamaica Bay. When Greater New York becomes a city of 10,000,000 people, it may become the axis for magnificent public buildings both in Manhattan and Brooklyn. But Canal Street today is a locality of small business and it is premature to try to force its Brooklyn continuation into prominence as a civic center. Although Manhattan's new court house will be built on Center Street, yet the front door of Manhattan's civic center will be the City Hall Park for the next thirty or forty years, and Canal Street at its best will be only the back door. When the big business of Manhattan reaches Canal Street it will be time enough to use city money for great public buildings on the Extension. If Brooklyn were an independent and self-contained city like Boston and Chicago it might experiment without fear in building up a new civic center, but Brooklyn today must look well to hold her own against the constant draft that Manhattan makes on her financial and office center.
Brooklyn Bridge is today and for a long time will be the main entrance to Brooklyn. The district between the bridge and Borough Hall has become depressed and unsightly, mainly because the retail shopping business left it, and Brooklyn, unlike independent cities, had no wholesale mercantile business to take its place. No city can hope to improve and brighten itself and still neglect its front door. The Clark Street subway will have a station near lower Fulton Street. The federal government has appropriated money to enlarge the Post Office. The bridge terminal has ceased to be a terminal and has become a way station, so that now the structures that deface the entrance to Brooklyn can be taken down, as Bridge Commissioner O'Keeffe proposes, and a solid, simple, low-lying structure substituted for the sheds and aerial monstrosities. Surely now is the time to link such an improvement with the clearing up of the whole district.
The borough must within a few months either grasp or lose its chance to start this work. As part of the dual rapid transit system the city has issued to the Municipal Railway Company, controlled by the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company, a certificate to third track its Fulton Street elevated line from the East River to East New York. The complications in perfecting the dual contracts, and the need of haste, were so great that the problem of freeing Borough Hall Park and lower Fulton Street of the elevated railroad was not solved and inserted in the contracts, but immediately after the signing of the dual plan, Mayor Gaynor, Borough President Steers, the Public Service Commission and the Board of Estimate took action resulting in the preparation and passage by the Legislature of an amendment to the Rapid Transit Act providing for the re-location of the tracks and the making of a contract for that purpose between the Public Service Commission and the company. Thus the way is paved for the removal of the elevated tracks to Adams Street, taking them entirely out of lower Fulton Street and Borough Hall Park. Orders for the fabrication of steel for the third track construction will soon be placed, and if the contract for re-location is not made, the steel will be ordered for reconstructing the elevated railroad in its present location. It would be unfortunate indeed if additional outlays should serve to perpetuate the railroad in Borough Hall Park. At the same time that the tracks are removed, it is desirable that the city should do as much as possible in opening and improving the unsightly locality between Fulton and Washington Streets. As an independent proposition the taking of so much land has not appealed to some of the members of the Board of Estimate, but an entirely different question is presented if this area can be used in part for one of the new public buildings. Plan 6 shows the locality as it would appear after the tracks are re-located and the plaza opened. Washington Street should be widened to correspond to the width of the open space now opposite the Mechanics' Bank Building. Some say, why not widen Washington Street taking forty or fifty feet of private land along its westerly side and do nothing to disarrange the rest of the property between Washington Street and Fulton Street? The answer to this is that the taking of parts of the buildings would in many cases be almost, if not quite, equivalent to a total destruction of the entire properties. If the city should acquire for public purposes the three blocks lying between Fulton Street and Liberty Street on the west and Washington Street on the east, it could widen Washington Street to the required width of 110 feet, use the space opposite the Post Office for one of the new buildings, and design the open space near the bridge as a dignified and fitting approach to Brooklyn Bridge, corresponding to some extent to the open space partly covered by the Manhattan municipal building at the other end. This should be done in connection with Commissioner O'Keeffe's plan of reconstructing the bridge terminal. The new public building located here would not act as a stopper in the bridge plaza, because the space now between the Mechanics' Bank Building and Myrtle Avenue is of a fixed width and acts as a fixed limitation. If Washington Street is widened to the same width, the approach to the bridge plaza proper would be better than if the bridge plaza should extend all of the distance to Borough Hall Park. In the latter case the plaza would be too large and not pleasing in form. A considerable part of this real estate is already owned by the city.
By chapter 390 of the laws of 1909 the Supreme Court justices of this department were empowered to select a site for a new court house and recommend it to the Board of Estimate. In 1910 they selected the two blocks bounded by Court, Clinton, State and Livingston Streets, and on December 20th, 1911, the report was made by the Board of Sinking Fund Commissioners to the Board of Estimate. The Board of Estimate has taken no action thereon.
In July, 1911, the Board of Estimate determined upon the southeast corner of Court and Joralemon streets as a site for the new municipal building, taking in both the corner and the land covered by the present municipal building. The land has been acquired, plans for the building have been prepared, and when the Board of Estimate makes an appropriation for building, actual construction can begin. If, however, the recommendations of this report should meet with favor, the municipal building would be erected in another place.
The committee has endeavored to deal with these four factors, viz., court house, municipal building, bridge plaza and re-location of tracks, so that the money expended should not only bring the best result for each factor, but at the same time bring the additional benefit of relating the four factors so that all will unite to improve the downtown center. We shall now compare the cost and advantages of the four factors as presented in the Clinton Street court house site, and as presented in the other plans that reasonably meet the needs of the situation.
FIRST PLAN
CLINTON STREET COURT HOUSE SITE
(See diagram marked Plan 1)
1. Cost of bridge changes and re-location of tracks as estimated by the Department of Bridges, and assessed value of additional property required for same $4,012,095.00
2. Assessed valuation of land and buildings between Washington and Fulton streets 1,249,100.00
3. Assessed valuation land and buildings, Clinton Street site for court house 1,527,700.00
4. Municipal Building site at south-west corner of Court and Joralemon streets (title now vested in the city) ------------- Total $6,788,895.00
This plan places the new court house on the site selected by the judges, and the new municipal building on the site that has been condemned for this purpose at the corner of Court and Joralemon streets to which will be added the land covered by the old municipal building. For the purpose of these comparisons no values are placed on land and buildings now owned by the city.
The item of $4,012,095 for Brooklyn Bridge changes and re-location of tracks is the same in each of the six plans, and includes the assessed values of the entire half blocks east of Adams Street. The re-location of the tracks on Adams Street will require a six track structure between the bridge and Myrtle Avenue and a three track structure between Myrtle Avenue and Fulton Street. Adams Street is not wide enough for so many tracks. The preponderating engineering opinion is that the city should not widen Adams Street, but remove the structure to the half block east of Adams Street. The space fronting Adams Street under the solid track floor would be available for renting. The cost of taking the half block by condemnation would not materially exceed the cost of taking forty feet along the block fronts. The question of damages to abutting owners would be avoided, and Adams Street would be made better for traffic and business than it is now. Part of this large item would be paid by the railroad company. Under the terms of the third tracking certificate already issued the company is to pay all of the cost of reconstruction and betterment of the structure in its present locations, and it is understood that the company will pay at least an equal amount when the tracks are re-located under the new law. If the re-location brings other benefits to the company it would seem that even a greater portion of this item should be borne by the company. The new law provides that the division of expense shall be arranged between the Public Service Commission and the company, subject to the approval of the Board of Estimate.
The new court house according to this plan would be 600 feet from the Hall of Records. Although the books and files kept in the Surrogate's and Register's offices are not needed so frequently in trials as the papers from the county clerk's office, it is a distinct disadvantage to have them so far away from the court house.
The new court house, on this site, would be unrelated to any other improvement. It would also be entirely surrounded by private property, admitting of no architectural development and bearing no relation to the court house itself. The land is entirely covered with buildings valuable for their present use and is a recognized center for physicians. If the court rooms are made to face toward the streets they will increasingly be subjected to street noises, for we find that no streets in this locality are quiet. Automobiles and auto-trucks abound. If this site were acquired for the new court house the Board of Estimate would probably refuse either to open the bridge plaza or widen Washington Street. The result would be that practically no general improvement to the financial center would be made. The Joralemon Street front of Borough Hall Park, probably the most dominating site in the borough, would contain three buildings, the Hall of Records, the old court house and the new municipal building, none of them harmonizing with the others, and bringing little or no distinction to the most prominent site in the borough. The old court house would be relegated to criminal business to the detriment of this vicinity.
It would seem that the city's plan for future buildings should make some use of the Polytechnic Institute land. It is only a question of time when this school will move elsewhere. This plan throws away the opportunity of making profitable use of this land.
The main objection to this plan, however, is that, although expensive, it brings practically no help to downtown Brooklyn. It dissociates the desired factors and does not relate them. It simply procures an isolated court house, leaving the business center of the borough as badly off as before.
SECOND PLAN
FLATBUSH AVENUE EXTENSION SITE FOR COURT HOUSE
(See diagram marked Plan 2)
1. Cost of bridge changes and re-location of tracks as estimated by the Department of Bridges, and assessed value of additional property required for same $4,012,095.00
2. Assessed valuation of land and buildings between Washington and Fulton streets 1,249,100.00
3. Assessed valuation of land and buildings Flatbush Avenue Extension site for court house 564,650.00
4. Municipal Building site at south-west corner of Court and Joralemon streets (title now vested in the city) ------------- Total $5,825,845.00
In this plan the court house would be 1,730 feet from the Hall of Records. The transaction of court business on the border of the retail shopping district would increase street congestion. It is distant from the present office district, and, if selected, injury to the present office district would result. It is inconvenient to residents of certain parts of the city. If court rooms fronted on the street they would yearly become more subject to noise. The available space would not afford as large an interior court as would be desirable if the court rooms were to face inside. If this site were acquired, the bridge plaza would probably remain unopened. Like Plan 1, this plan scatters the benefit of the four factors under discussion, and does not unite them.
THIRD PLAN
STATE STREET SITE FOR COURT HOUSE
(See diagram marked Plan 3)
1. Cost of bridge changes and re-location of tracks as estimated by the Department of Bridges, and assessed value of additional property required for same $4,012,095.00
2. Assessed valuation of land and buildings between Washington and Fulton streets 1,249,100.00
3. Assessed valuation of land and buildings in the two blocks bounded by Boerum Place, Livingston, Court and State streets 1,507,900.00