The San Francisco call., 1904-12-22
TWO SITES FOR LIBRARY
FIND PUBLIC FAVOR.
Merits Of both Are Under Discussion
One Lot Is That Recommended as "Civc
Center" by Architect Burnham

Tomorrow afternoon the joint Com
nittee on Finance and Utilities of
the Board Of Supervisors Will. it is
said. finally consider the question or
the selection Of "a site FOR the new Pub
lie Library A discussion that has
arisen as TO the merits Of proposed
sites. two in particular lends added
interest 90 the question, and ii is prob
able that the body that must determine
between them viii be overwhelmed by
the opinions Of those most interested
opinions based IN the main on civic in
terest, but some, undoubtedly, on the
motive Of personal gain
Eliminating properties that are weak
IN public support but at the same time
have been seriously considered in the
past as desirable sites for the library,
the forces that are seeking to bring this
question to final decision are found rail-
lied around two blocks, one body in
interest advocating the selection Of
block c. Of the Western Addition,
bounded by Van Ness avenue, Grove,
Polk and Fulton streets; the other urg-
ing the purchase Of Western Addition
block 73. bounded by Van Ness avenue,
Hayes. Fell and Franklin streets. Each
side engaged in the discussion has vari-
Gus points 10 make that are worthy Of
the fullest consideration. but, briefly
stated. the question seems to rest on
clashing interpretations of the ideas Of
y. H Burnham, the distinguished
Chicago architect. under whose direc-
ton plans are being prepared for the
adornment Of San Francisco.
The advocates of the purchase by the
city Of block 81 lay the greatest stress
On the claim that in his plans to beau
tify San Francisco Architect Burn
ham. who is now in Manila, includes
this site in his proposed "Civic Center"
q district including and lying directly
west Of the City Hall, from which mag
nifccnt buildings, dedicated TO the pub
lie use, shall rise from the green of
public park But they go beyond
the claim that Architect Burnham has
decreed that the district described shall
be the '-civic center" of San Francisco,
and cite specific cases of official action
they say should be permitted to pre-
vail
BOARD SPECIFIED SITE.
When the Board Of Supervisors called
for vote Of the people on the question
OF voting bonds for a new Public Lii
brary, block g. was specifically named
as the proposed library site, but, TO
guard against exOrbitant demands, the
board inserted the additional clause,
"Or upon a parcel or lot Of land Of simi-
lar size and like value and in the i'm
mediate neighborhood of said block or
parcel Of land hereinbefore described
(blOck CD. and the estimated cost Of the
land to be acquired is $647, O00." The
insertion of the provisional clause, the
advocates Of block s. say. was for but
one purpose, TO hold the owners of
block 81 down TO the figure named in
the call for the bond election, and in
no way contemplated the abandonment
OF the site upon any other contingency.
The advocates Of block 81 further
claim that the site has been officially
appraised and has come within the sum
allowed for the purchase of the library
site; that the fact that block 81 was
named as the proposed site in the call
for election gives it the weight Of pub
lie sanction: that IL has been virtually
approved by the architect and by the
City Engineer and that il can be ac-
quired within the amount OF the appFo-
priation without the necessity Of con-
demnation proceedings. which, they
say, would involve delay and uncertain
expenditures.
Continuing, they say that block 81 is
accessible bV four lines of street rail-
ways. and fhat If accepted by the
Board OF Supervisors would not only be
within easy reach of all the people, but
would establis at once a great Struc-
fure from which Mr.. Burnham could
extend his plans and would supply
definite nucleus around which the new
and beautiful city Of San Francisco, as
planned by that architect, could grow
But 70 all this argument those that
favor block 7S have an answer. Favor