, 1875-12-12
NEW YORK AND CHICAGO.

NEW YORK AND CHICAGO.
how raE COMPARE N PRICES OF ZEAL ESTATE.
70 tbs Editor Of The CHICAGO Tribune:
BRAr11EBoRoCaH, Ut, Dec. 9.-I frequently
notice in your Sunday edition, under the title
3" Real Estate" copious extracts concerning New
York real property, which appear to be quoted
as atfording basis Of comparison with your own
real estate market. A I am toierabty familiar
with real eetate in both cities, Will you permit
me to point out the totally different conditions
which exist between them?
/. Chicago prices ha1e never approx mated those
OF New York, either positively OF comparatively
1t the southeast corner OF Wall and Broad
streets, piece of land was sold three or four
years ago, ahout II feet On Broad street By shout
43 feet on Wall street, for S25o, 600, of which,
think, e15O,000 was gold. Nothing approaching
thzt figure Rss ever made in Chicago. OF course
that transaction was exceptional, but suppose We
take forced sale made this year {1875} at the
corner OF Pine and Nassau streets. 4 lot 81 by
80, with pour brown-stone house On It, vSe
sold at auction by the Receiver Of broken bank
to the Clearing House for S215,0 But let US
look uptown. About three years ago 81 mi
nent lawyer sold to an eminent banker vacant
lot. 50 by 150, with IN alley in the rear, for
e125, 600. This lot WAS at the corner Of Sixty
tral Park, and in an unsettled neghborhood.
of the city-Hall HIS aoY vacant
lot to be ueed for dwelling purposes
II that size and miles from your court-House.
Or in auy other location in Chicago, ever sold for
&12a0N2 My impression ia that Rev. Dr.
Halls congregation paid $3.50, 900 for their
church lo+, say l00x150, or l251175, at the cor
ner Of Fifty fifth street and Fifth avenue, With
in SO feet Of the ugly rear Of st. Luke's Hos
i+~t xt,n1 hahn nm hA
This Is about miles north OF the GitJ-Han ALI
along the Fifth avenus south Of Central Park
aud north Of Forty second street lots have been
held at from S75000 to 100000. being only
aoy such prices psd Tor vacant dwelling lots OF
that sizo IL Chicago7 I could multiply ex-
aznples indefinitely, but tt is unnecessary.
9. Chicago bas no 1ealestate ring to run up
prices. New York hnshAd u combination Of that
kind, which has coma to grief. Let me- give
you an example: In 1858 si1 lots, together,-a
plat 1o01150 feet, as the corner OF NinetJ-third
street and Fifth avenue (the 100 being tha Az
enue front), sold for S58, 500 In 1870 the puT-
chasers resoid for $64, 900, losing money,
reckoning taxes. assessments, and interest. IN
1871 it was bought for 9100, 000, and the pur-
chaser refused TOT It the same year 3180, 600.
This rise was purely artificial, caused by the
/ combination. The properly is in desol&ta, va
can't part OF the city. full Of rocks and squstters,
and the vicinity leeds much grading. 1t fronts
the Park, but commands no view OF it, aud lies
G miles from the City-HAl. Think Of csc, 600 a
q LOT t25xl00 With no a1ley) for both avenue and
street lots at such distance! Fifteen TeatR
ago the six Lots we're not worth more than 925.-
co., Ill told. Similar examples could DO multi
piled nd fnf1nitum.
s. Although you have gone heavily into the
boulevard business, you can form little idea Of
the same businees in New York Numerous
people get an idea that BY widening road or
street they enhance the value Of property on the
u1dened streer, and Of al the neighborhood
traYersed by it. The refutation Of this idea lies
, around them in all directions. The widening Of
Centre street, West Broadway, and other streets
! proved the idea delusioD. Hecently tho WIDEN
| ing of other streets, especially upper Broadway
and Laurens street, has established the idea as
| delusion. The very vide streets OF the c,ty are
| not the most valuable. Nothing ia gained by
exceeding 100 feet except to the driving pub
| lie, who, of course, profit by vide
! thoropehE{1es- Broadway, up to Thirty
| fourth street.. averages only 7Q fest IN width.