New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-05-21
THAT VANDERBILT PoRTE-cocHERE.

To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: Your high stepping correspondent. "Pedes-
+rian must be in with the powers that De at
nresent He asserted the other day that the land
which the late William H. Vanderbilt walled IN
over a quarter of a century ago was a part OF lhe
street and that an open pOrte-cochere erected ON
it In the identical place where a thousand other
citizens have solid masonry platforms and stone
steps was contrary to law. This morning President
Cantor is reported saying ditto to pedestrian
and ordering Mr.. Vanderbilts porte-cochere 10 De
taken down. Meantime, it appears that ne dlo NOT
erect il till ne had held for year permit for us
erection from the Superintendent Of Buildings
Now President Cantor and Pedestrian are GER
tain right to this extent, that they have thus lar
had the last word. But If they are right why
shouldn't the Department of Buildings pay MI
Vanderbilt for the cost of the portecochere which
il permitted and authorized him TO put up. ana
which Mr. Cantor orders down? Or, if the Build
ing Department doesn't pay for it why shouldnt
Mr.. Cantor do so?
aon'+ care about Mr. Vanderbnts rights in the
premises any more than about those of any other
citizen but 1 hate to see childishness running rot
in the shape either Of official orders or OF neWspa-
rAr correspondence in a journal Of The Tr1oune's
authority.
pedestrian" solernnly declared that the erection
Of a porte-cochere was contrary 10 law When
confronted with the fact that there were plenty OF
them in the city, he first pleaded that some sort OF
'permissive authority had been given IN Few
cases such as hotels etc. for public convenience
but that any way they were different from this one
and not ugly.
On that point I might agree with him in part
The Vanderbilt porte-cochere certainly Is ugly
though some of the other porte-cocheres which
have been erected Cby the same authority he had
for more years than his porte-cochere has been up
DAYS are a good deal uglier. What Is the use OF
talking about uglness any way. IN q city
whose Building Department sanctioned the Fiat
iron Building? After that any old thing goes IN
this town, so far as mere ugliness is concerned.
Now the plain fact is that for half a century
and probably a great deal longer the uniform prac-
tice has been to allow the owners practlcaAy eX-
elusive control Of all the land inside what IS called
the "stoop line" They have sometimes walled it
IN with high stone or brick walls; have sometimes
fenced it up with iron fences six or eight feet
high; have always until recent happy turn in our
architectural fashions used it for the construction
an outside staircase to the second story OF their
houses: have ordinarily landed this staircase on d
solid construction Of masonry taking as much
space as Mr. Vanderbilt's porJe-cochere. and have
sometimes surmounted this by construction OF
iron and glass wallng in and roofing this platform
~ the level of the second story. Mr.. Vanderbilt :
offence against public rights was TO leave this
entire space open so that you could drFe car
rage through it, His wall stands exactly where
his father put it; but he has been less grasplng
because he has made two big openings in it. Now
~ .Fedestran'' and President Cantor do not hft Up
49,, - T7ffth-aye their attitude against Mr.. Van
derbilt's porte-cochere is childish
rrinmi1s's proposition last year to abolish the
stoop line put the sidewalks on H. torce eVeIyDoy
walk and widen the street or roadway OF tlfth-
to include the ground no" ta h i9a as te
sensible proposition, and would have been an eIot
dent Cantor's crusade against George Vanderbilt
alone Is said in forner letter mere na5.Ls
Of demagogsm popular with certain le
number OF voters But II they are IN ie
New-York' May 90 1908 PLAIN WALKER.