New-York tribune., 1886-04-24
THAT HARLEM RIVER BRIDGE.

While The TRIBUNE has good reason to con
gratulate the taxpayers of New-York upon tn,
result of its work with relation to the Harlem
bridge project, it Is not yet clear that the
structure will not cost the city vastly more
money than it is worth. Our exposures saved al
least $1,000.000. The monstrous contract to
which tie Commissioners were committed when
we unearthed the affair fixed the viaduct's
actual cost at $2,6SO.OOO, but from the shape
things were taking we should have been sur
prsed if the city had escaped with smaller
burden all told than $500, 900. But having
checked these extravagant schemes just in the
nick of time, the Commissioners got out of the
arrangement somehow, and began to discover
that they were engaged in handling public
trust They lost their temper, but retained
their discretion when this fact was broua bt
| homo to them, and facing about they invited
the public to bid on the necessary contracts.
When the bids were opened on Thursday IL
was found that two firms, one bidding on the
masonry and the other on the iron work. offered
to put up the structure for 81, 7SO, ,0O7 go. IF
| the business of the Commission were manooed
economically not more than two millions
would need to be spent at the very outside
We do not for a moment concede that this
whole project is not wasteful and unnecessary
On the contrary, we affirm that it was conceived
for the benefit of Harlem River real estatn
spectators and put through the Legislature,
as "fat job" There are already six bridoos
across the Harlem, and the city could we'll afford
to ait for seventh till it was in a condition to
stand the expense of it. But if it must he bult
cost of two millions is better than n cost of
three and half.
Reputable engineers, however, assert that
even two millions is an extravaganza and seri-
GUS fault is found with the plans adopteI nv
the Commission. The Engineering Ne,us thinks
that they are clumsy aud homely. 1t saws that
they are not credltabe to the skill and taste of
the bridge engineers. A glance at them seems
10 confirm that opinion in the unprofessionaI |
mind. The completed bridge will consist of |
TWO still metallic arches and gloomy expanse |
OF stone wall. Such an arrangement of arch. |
way is violation of engineering aesthetics. and |
so much stone wall is expensive vhilo Il ie
neither necessary for strength nor PLEASING to
the eye. different plan " as submitted to tbo
commissioners at their last meeting by a well.
known firm of engineers, which certainly merits
their thoughtful attention. The aesioners
guarantee that its cost will be only 81, ,5s2. 600
1t is certainly handsome, the balances of arch.
way, pier and stone wall being well preserved.
and II 1t is safe, strong and durable, the ele.
ment of reduced expense is a strong argument
in its favor. Instead of a dreary stretch of
wall, it provides handsome archways which
are less expensive and leave the uninterrupted
ground for such uses as in tine are likely TO
arise.
These Commissioners must understand that
he public demands that they shall ceuse their
ecretiye proceedings and show what they are
ioiug with its money and its trust 1t expects
hem to do this work as cheaply as it possibly
an be done, saving every dollar that is not un-
uestiOnably necessary 1t has begun it's work
n n way that naturally excites apprehension