234 
PARK AND 
wayi shows the extent of the agitation for beautifying cities, 
devotes a section to the plan of streets from which I take 
but the single sentence : “Shun the checkerboard plan as you 
would the plague.” 
A report on Staten Island, a residential portion of greater 
New York, insists on a contemporaneous study of the city 
plan and the park system in the following words : “The ques- 
tion of a suitable park system is so intimately related to the 
proposed street system, that the two must, of course, be con- 
sidered together.” 
These specific instances, selected from a number, bear 
evidence of the new interest in the city plan and of the rec- 
ognition of the fact that parks are but a part thereof. But 
there has been during the past year, a realization of what it 
means not to recognize this fact and two notable instances 
are afforded by two cities of widely different population, 
namely. New York with its 4,000,000 inhabitants, and Hartford 
with its 100,000. New York feels keenly the mistake of 
blocking absolutely two of its ten main thoroughfares running 
north and south by the solid mass of Central Park. That 
park has been a vast benefit to New York City and proposi- 
tions to remedy the mistake made 50 years ago are academic. 
But it is clearly recognized that a mistake was made, and 
that the same amount of area could have been chosen far 
better if the city plan had been studied and ground for the 
park had been selected somewhere else, as along the two 
water fronts, in the form of an elongated park between Sixth 
the Seventh streets, or in some other of the many ways 
that have been suggested. Similarly, Pope Park in Hartford, 
Conn., chosen recently without any study of the street plan, 
has been found to block seriously a thoroughfare from an 
outlying section to the city’s center. 
A year ago I had the pleasure of delivering an address be- 
fore the American Civic Association on the subject of the 
City Plan, in which I called attention to the remarkable 
amount of study given to it in foreign cities. These reports 
show that the small beginning made in this country a few 
years ago is bearing more and more fruit. The Commission 
on the Improvement of the District of Columbia in their re- 
port published in March, 1901, called attention to the city 
plan of Washington. As far as the writer is aware this was 
the first official exposition of the city plan in this country. 
The first report of an association of private citizens, was, I 
believe, the report on the City Plan published in 1902 by the 
City Parks Association of Philadelphia, which I had the pleas- 
ure of writing in my capacity as secretary. A number of 
associations of the larger cities have since issued reports on 
the City Plans and there have been a few articles in maga- 
zines. 
The widening interest in the subject is shown by the reports 
from which quotations have been made ; but, so far as I 
know, there has been no actual revision of the street system 
of an American city as a whole with the exception of what 
San Francisco may have done, if indeed it has avoided the 
mistake of Baltimore. But we are realizing that actual revi- 
sion must be undertaken. There is no reason why prompt ac- 
tion in all outlying sections should not prevent further errors. 
Before the more or less radical correction of previous mis- 
takes can be undertaken by American cities they must be given 
the power enjoyed by European cities, the agitation for which 
in America is the second notable and, because of its far reach- 
ing effects, fundamental advance made within the last year. 
Power to Condemn Land in Order to Sell again 
This advance is ably summed up in a pamphlet by Mr. 
Theodore Marburg, a member of your Association, in a paper 
on this subject. He calls attention to the recent opening in 
London of the Kingsway, a street only 100 feet wide and a 
CEMETERY. 
mile in length, at a cost of $30,000,000. This entire expense 
has been more than recouped because the city had the author- 
ity to condemn and purchase the land fronting on the street 
to sell again after the improvement had been completed. 
In order that the history of this subject may appear upon 
the files of this association, may I state that the first import- 
ant pronouncement upon this subject is contained in the re- 
port of the New York City Improvement Commission pub- 
lished about a year and a half ago : “Although the expendi- 
tures necessarily required by any proper plan must be large, 
they can in many instances be greattly reduced, if the city had 
the power exercised in many European cities of condemning 
more than the area actually required, so that the city might 
reap the benefit to be derived from the enhanced value of 
neighboring property, and in the judgment of the commission 
steps should be taken to secure such changes in the constitu- 
tion and legislative enactments as may be necessary for the 
purpose. This method of taking more land than required, 
with the object of resale at an advance for recouping part of 
the expense, has been applied in various large cities of Great 
Britain and the continent where extensive alterations have 
been undertaken for securing architectual effects, remedying 
sanitary conditions or improving the city generally, and it 
is questionable whether many of the improvements would 
have been otherwise accomplished. Objections to giving the 
city such power have sometimes been raised on the ground 
that it might be abused or injudiciously exercised. In these 
times, however, of increasing municipal activities when so 
many more extensive powers are constantly being entrusted to 
those charged with the administration of the city’s affairs, 
such objection can scarcely be considered necessarily fatal 
or conclusive, if proper safeguards and limitations are im- 
posed.” 
In the report on “American Park Systems,” hereafter re- 
ferred to, the want of such authority is thus summed up. 
“If Philadelphia had the authority to condemn land on both 
sides of the Fairmount Park Parkway, while the initial ex- 
penditure would, of course, be larger, in the long run it is 
altogether likely that the city would be able to recoup the 
entire expense. In other words, Philadelphia’s tax-payers 
will pay from eight to ten million dollars, because the city 
has not this authority. Furthermore, if it had the authority, 
the city having secured title to these properties, could sell the 
land with building restrictions, thus insuring a more beautiful 
approach to our great park.” 
Ex-Mayor Phelan wrote me some time ago that the citi- 
zens of San Francisco were endeavoring to have this power 
given to that city in order to further the work of reconstruc- 
tion. 
A correspondent from St. Louis writes that one of the rec- 
ommendations in the City Plan Report of the Civic League 
will be a law similar to the Ohio statute, which provides 
for the purchase of more land than is needed for a definite 
improvement with a view of recovering the cost of the im- 
provement by the resale of additional land area. 
The authority in Ohio is the most general that has yet been 
given and is one of the beneficial results of the agitation for 
the Cleveland Group Plan and the undertaking of its actual 
construction. 
Smaller Cities and Park Systems 
A report on “American Park Systems,” which with the as- 
sistance of Frank Miles Day, president of the American Insti- 
tute of Architects, I had the honor of preparing for, at that 
time, 48, now 56, Philadelphia organizations allied for the 
acquisition of a comprehensive park system, published during 
the past year, showed that nearly all the large cities of the 
country had more or less adequate plans for securing larger 
parks and connecting existing and proposed parks by park- 
