The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1896-06-09
The Proposed Boulevard.
10 the Editor of the Press:

SAtaoie eHuOEsluS INC OlnSGeQ
plan OF improvements for Back Cove,
mace special plea for cooperation of on
| 0huslasm in bringing about the building
OIL 1he boulevard along the Deering shore
line' especially suggesting that as long as
| Viiore was complete unanimity in regard
20 the desirability of this portion Of Mir.
Olmsted's recommendations "that we
should refrain from discussing the exact
ana best methods Of keeping the flats
covered, whether it be by dredging or i'm
pounding, till later date, and bend our
| energies towards building the shore bou-
leVard thus preventing the repetition of
sludge bordered line of buildings and
recurrence of the summer cry against
BACK Cove o61ors." This was written
| well knowing that there might be differ
| ences Of opinions as to the proper treat
nent Of that part of the scheme. 1t
seemed to me to be highly desirable to
avoid controversy in matter so iInpor-
tant to Portland and DeeriIig, and / but
further emphasized Mr. Olmsted's sug-
gestion, that the full development of the
dyke or exterior boulevard might be left
TO the next generation. But 1t has not
worked as hoped and the public has
been told by MIR. Noyss that the Olmsted
plan is ''expensively invaluable and too
absurd to be seriously considered" and
that his plan will accomplish the desired
end in the cheapest way, namely the plan
of dredging all the flats of Back Cove
to a level Of three feet below the plane of
low water and depositing the mud along
| the shore Of Back Cove by which means
you will have at small cost the begin
ming of the boulevard, as we cannot
afford the Olmsted plan because it is SO
expensive"
Let us examine and see which plan is
| too absurd to be seriously considered. 1t
| is estimated that there are at least 500
acres Of flats in Back Cove. To 'dredge
this area to the depth suggested by Mr.
Noyes, makes an average cutting OF six
feet, and the removal Of approximately
five million cubic yards of mud, which
under the most favorable circumstances
would cost 10 cents per cubic yard, or
total of $500, 900. II islands were made
somewhat less mater iaf would be moved,
but the cost of elevating and distribut-
| ing sthe material would more than Offset
\ the gain, and furthermore we should
still have the Shiny long mud slopes OF
| the islands unless enclosed in expensive
| bulkheads exposed each tide to the sum :
| mer SUD.
| MIR. Olmsted's boulevard along the
shore will require less than loo, 600 cubic
1 nN11 Co itc ,cx1 r,Jhf nh H.
| put in place for less than Is cents per
cubic yard, and his dyke 5000 feet long
and 30 feet wide and nine feet high will
reQuite only 100, COZ cubic yards of
dredged material, which with timber
bulk head would cost about $40, 900. This
estimate Is verified by the fact that our
present marginal way 100 feet wide and
one-half mile long was built for $685. 700.
We may finally state the contrast of
cost in the two methods accomplishing
the same ends as $50, 900 on the Olmsteu
| plan, and 500, 0O0 for the Noyss plan. and
| yet Mir, Noyes has asserted that Mr..
| Olmsted's plan is too acknowledgements to
bs seriously considered. Neither OF the
above estimates go into the details of en-
| bellishment and are intended only to be
approximately correct in ratio and extent.
I will take pleasure in presenting to Mr.
Noyes's engi Eeering advisors data by
which the above oaE be verified.
Mr.. Noyes's practical common sens ="
leads him to say, dredge the nats and
deposit the mud on the proposed boule.
ward and you will have no flats, and the
beginning of the boulevard at small
| cost. I think he must have misunder-
stood, and misquoted his advising engi-
neer, and should have said that when he
| had finished the boulevard he would have
made beginning on his main work and
hGd still on hand 4,901. 600 cubic yards to
dredge and perfect his scheme. / shall
most willingly accord to Mr.. Noyes the
monopoly of this common sense, which
he does!1ne the honor to assert l do not
entirely enjoy.
am sorry to trespass further on your
space, hut Mr.. Farley's communication
| perhaps warrants a brief reply. Mr..
Farley ought to know that 20 years time
4 does not impair written records, and by
turning to old files of our Portland papers
i no will find an account of the interview
j with Professor Mitchell and his, Mr..
posed changes in Back Cove. For Boston
harbor where Back Bay. fats several
| times greater than the whole of our Back
| Cove have been filed. House document
| No. IT'S dated in 1894 states that "the
United States Board of 1859 evidently ex-
pected that a rapid decrease in the depth
of the harbor would follow the diminu-
| UlOu VI buc plQul E44ooA1 ny n4iloG1 OOu %
report OF Board of United States Engi-
neers made thirty years later indicates
that the harbor has deteriorated but lit
tie IL any from this cause am perfect
ly content to leave this part of the subject
to the decision of a Board of United
/ States Engineers who shall be put in pos
session of the gravity of the nuisance
which we seek to abate in Back Cove
and who shall be empowered to deter
mine methods by which injurious effects,
it any upon Portland harbor, that the
diminution of water flow from Back
Cove may cause shall be compensated. /
| would not hesitate today to place the
whole matter with proper explanation in
tho hands of Prof. Mitchell, well know
ing that the harbor interests would he
protected and feeling assured that the
flats could be kept flooded and with out
any considerable expense in addition to
these oomprehended in the Olmstsd plan.
Il. G. JORDAN. Civil Engineer.
|