New-York tribune., 1907-10-09
WATERFRONT DISPUTE.
1RT And TRADE At ODDS.
Chelsea improvement Condemned
Use of Pier Roofs Opposed.

! The Municipal Art Society has advocated for
years the establishment of the water front with
out sacrificing its commercial advantages. 1t has
! recently been in correspondence with John A.
| Bensel, Commissioner of Docks and Ferries,
gardinS the design of sheds for the transatlantic
lines in what is known the Chelsea section. be-
tween Gansevoort Market and West 23d street.
Charles r. Lamb. president OF the society, in
letter to Commissioner Bensel. suggested that the
docks were the only breathing spaces for large
tenement house sections especially the West
Side. where small parks few. Mr.. Lamb
urged that roofs of the pier sheds should be used
as recreation places. This would the city the
rental of other piers sacrificed for this purpose,
diminishing the already restricted docking fac-
ties of the port especially in Manhattan.
Mr. Lamb wrote to Mr.. Bensel that by the
called Chelsea improvement the view of the river
and the western shore would be cut off from tho
street for more than 2,5O0 feet. and added:
That which should be one of the most beautiful
and interesting thoroughfares in the city will be-
come one OF tho duliest and most purely CONNER
cut off and walled in by this most unintelligent
method Of connecting the pierheads by continuous
vantages of the citys site are deliberately thrown
away and the innate right Of the citizen to the
land and sky presented is denied him without any
The society 'respcctfuly suggests that some
street along the piers and beyond to the river with
IT'S thronginS shipping and the Jersey shore. be
udinaiiy instead Of transversely The approacRes
to the city both when seen from the river and from
the streets, viii thus retain much more OF that
Spaciousness' ,openness ana attiraG4veness which
without their material advantages.
Commissioner Bensel replied to Mr.. Lambs sug-
gestion that the roofs of the pier sheds in the
Chelsea section be used recreation piers. that It
was impossible for tho city TO obtain tenants of
certain character. referring particularly to the
transatlantic lines with the recreation feature
the roof OF the pier embodied part OF the con-
struction.
Commissioner Bensei's letter went on 10 say:
The value and Importance OF the craft using
these piers is such that the companies owning the
entire control of each and every part of the pier
structure. The city would do Tar better by using
the commercial section of the waterfront as the
demands of commerce require, and using such
other portions Of the waterfront as may be neces-
sary for tho use of the puohc such sections NOT 70
sections OF the waterfront of this city are SO set
aside. in my opinion. greatly to tEe ocneht OF Ihe
The commercial use of the waterfront by providing
conditions which the lessees or tho CITY claim
would be injurious 10 them. "ouid dement, 'he CITY
# carried out.
Mr. Lambs reply to this letter from Commits
sioner Bensel was. IN part. follows:
II NAV be considered N least an open question
whether IN view Of the absolute necessity Of Sc
curing desirable piers along the Manhattan water.
n lea So these piers with the recreation feature on
the roof. provided suitable precautions we're taken
by means Of cement roofs and complete nrepT2299t
structures ratings placed on the r"ol al Il SUM-
cient distance from the edge. etc.
Would il not better TO make at least an
effort to import something OF the artistic REQUIRE
nents into the commercial sections OF the city In
stead of abandoning them completely to so-calied
nractical consldcrati tiOns2 II would be easy 10
nuofe examples from other municipalities In which
both have been combined. There VIII remain ."i
all time citizens taking an interest in me city,
gates nosteritv itself to appreciate the distinction
between the two methods of building.