New-York tribune., 1874-05-07
THE STEVENS APARTMENT HOUSE.


LETTER FROM ME- RAFT. WHO sUPERINTENDED THE
CONSTRUCTION, Mr.. HUNT BEING ARCHITECT
EVIDENCE THAT TIE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION
WAS sAFE-THE DAMAGE DUE TO THE PILE
DRIVING or MEssRs. GILMAN & CROOKS.
To the EditOr Of The Tribune.
SIR: Messrs. Arthur Gilman g. Arthur Crooks
published in THE TRIBUNE OF the Goth ult an elaborate
reply TO some made by me to of your re-
porters and published I'm your paper OF the 2Sh ut Dy
which they seek prove that the settling Of part OF
the Stevens Apartment House, which has lately at
racted attention Of the public and the press was duo
10 mistake in construction by Mr. Il. NJ Hunt and not
TO their own gross careessuess disturbing the founda
ton of the building to which they made an addition
have until now delayed an answer III expectation OF
report of the Building Department which might throw
the responsibility whore 1t belongs
The original stevens Apartment House was built by
the late Mr. Parln stevens in 1871, Mr. Hunt being the
architect and myself superntendng the construction.
IL has frontage on Broadway OF 10j feet, Twenty
seycnthst feet aud Fithaye OF % feet When
this building nearly finished, Mr. Stevens purchased
tho house and the south lot adjoining 1t
OH Fthavc.. and in last Summer or Fall the admins
traitors Of his down the old houses this lot
man & A. Crooks the erection of new one intended as
an addition 90 the large house built By Mr. Stevens In
his lifetime after the plans Of Mr. Hunt.
There had been very slight settling IN the south pier
e..
which occurred after the house completed, and
then remained unaltcred until the addition was but 1t
to the casual observer and would unquestionaby have
been final had there been no reckless disturb
& Crooks began their addition they noticed
this settling. and as proof how slight 1t was, Mr..
Crooks tells that ho had 10 call the attention OF con-
tractors and III but Mr. Gilman SAYS that IN
order perfectly at ease he had an inspection made
by the Binding Department. and they, one and all,
concluded that our building wa, perfectly safe aud mad
settled all it would" Ii there had then been any doubt
oVaI,oY tfo faFf
why did they then at least use measures Tor preven-
uoi they now must for cure All that was
the part already erected But that very damage they
ala They drove five little piles Immediately by the
side OF foundation of this very pier which they
claim showed then such weakness Five lltIe piles
means five ordinary piles, each about twenty feet long
and DID hev not know what every engineer,
architect and builder ought to know, that driving piles
draws down and unscttes the surrounding aud neigh
boring grOundl MIR Gilman tells us that he does know
and that therefore had the piles all driven BY hand
and not by steam, usual in order not in the least TO
shake or disturb any other walls in the vicinity" The
amusing s0phstry OF this assertion characteizes his
whole line OF argument For mark, he had the piles
driven by "a regular pe-drver Of the kind commonly
used which iron block weighing half ton or more,
and running in the grooves OF two upright beams is
raised about 30 feet. and suddenly the grappes arc
pushed back and tho block falls upon the head OF the
engine sometimes by laborers at the crank OF a
windlass, but N either case the drop falls OF its
own weight. viii Mr. Gilman be good enough to furnish
us calculation Of The difference In the velocity ana
impetus of the falling block and its effect on the driven
nile and the surrounding foundations whether raised
by steam by hand before being droppedi shall let
the public draw its own conclusions about the fairness
OF his statements well the forethought and
employed by him In undermining our foundation With
in very short time after he thus disturbed this foun
datIon and before he had finished his building, the old
budnC began TO SETTLE large cracks appeared in the
brckwork, and little cast-Iron column about six
inches In diameter. upon which an immense
Weight was thus thrown by the sinking OF the
south pier, bent vslby and was In great danger
OF breaking Crooks tells us that he then intended
" to take out a little brick pier and otherwise
and the Ffthave front OF old building"
ana S aeSon ls1 Of the INSPECTOR of Buildings was called
to the condition Of said front" How i7 it that the
building on June 9, 1873 when Messrs. Gilman
& Crooks commenced operations, according to the
formers memorandum-book, pronounced 1t all right
and saws the foundation on that side is extra strong
says we go ahead, but would like US to keep well
nns HE Attention had to be called to the condition Of
said 'front.'" and he had to order extensive OF
teered by themselves that the old building been in
the same condition when they began as was when they
left of operations They allege and lay great stress
upon the fact that some other foundation near which
they also drove piles. did not settle Everybody will
ence ia weights carried by the foundation readily
There ia over the third story OF the Ffthaye front q,
the old building heavy concealed arch with iron tie
rods and granite skewbacks spanning the whole width
of that building aud originally throwing ali the weight
above the north and south pers The foundation
the south pier being drawn down by the pile
driving. that pier sank and the arch losing its
i bore on the Intel the third story window
crushing part OF the little brick pier between 1t and the
on the ground noor The foundation under this colun
although only few feet from the dlsplace cd,
bore the immense and unexpected weight with
out hnching and its resistance, together with
that OF little column and brick pierhe latter only
Intended to carry their weight-was SO thorough
that concealed arch above is now cracked upward
the point where bears the little pier Neither this
nor any other part OF the foundation but by Mr. Hunt
shows any sign whaever OF unusual settlement Messrs
Gilman Crooks's assertion 10 the contrary notwith-
standing.
shall also correct an Of Mr. Glman's when he
speaks OF the party wall OF Mir Hunts work" did
build tins party wall and were not allowed TO inter
fere with It, Mr. stevens not owning at the time the ad
joining and lot. We did build addition 10 IT.
however to make t of the thickness required by law.
About the relative merits OF foundations piles
crete &C. there occasion 10 write treatise here.
The textbooks give that information. | subOin the
report OF the Building Department, which mainly
eess the remedies for the damage done ana incidentally
makes a remark-non-cOmmlttal enough-on its origin.
Aep-l York, May S, 1874 f. L. RAHr
REPORT OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
CHARACTER OF THE DAMAGE-MEAsUREs OF SAFETY
REQUIRED.
DEPARTMENT BUILDINGS
OFFICE or SUPERINTENDENT, No. FOuRTIl, AVE- !
-. w - NLW-foRK, April 30 1914 }
WALTER W; ADAMS. esq, Saperintndent Of Buiidings