THE PROJECT OF A GREAT PARK FOR SAN FRANCISCO.

It should be Considered and Acted Upon Now—Uses and Benefit of City Parks—The New York Central Park—Its Pecuniary, Aesthetic and Sanitary Value—San Francisco Ought to Profit by the Example of other Cities.

Editor Bulletin.

A late article in the Bulletin brings before the public the important question, whether the time has not fully arrived when a tract of the least unsuitable land in the suburbs of the city of San Francisco should not be secured for a public park. The article is based upon some observations of a writer in the New York World upon the general subject of public pleasure grounds, which contain numerous errors, one of the more amusing of which is the assertion that the Rotten Row, in Hyde Park, derives its name from the fact that the ground upon it has been broken up by the action of hoofs of horses. Rotten Row is the fashionable slang name for “The King’s Road,” or as it was originally called in French, La route du roi, and is simply a corruption of the latter designation. It was laid out as a direct road for the use of the King between Westminster and Kensington Palace. It is now an artificial riding pad, of loose gravel, being used for carriages only on rare occasions and by the royal family. The observations upon the public use and abuse of parks evince equal ignorance of the subject. The truth is, notwithstanding the bad reputation of the New York populace, there is no park in Europe that is made as good use of by the people, none where the proportion of offenses against good order and good taste is so small, or the respect for the regulations necessary for the best use of a park, so great as in the park of New York. This fact is one of great importance and significance, and has been established by careful observation and comparison of police records. It is a constant custom with many ladies to spend some hours every day with their children, unattended by men, upon the park. Not an instance is known where they have met with insult or annoyance.

In the last report of the Commissioners of the Park, it is stated that persons had been detected in plucking or injuring shrubs or flowers but nine times during the year, the visits made by individuals to the park during the same period having been over 3,600,000, and over 90,000 [426]having entered the gates on foot in a single day. But twenty five offenses of all kinds, including those of intoxicated persons, occurred on the park during the year, which were thought worthy of notice by a magistrate, and nearly all of these, the Commissioners observe, were of a venial character—the result of thoughtlessness or carelessness. It is beyond all question that the influence of the park is exceedingly favorable to moral as well as physical health, and that it exerts a highly civilizing effect upon the population of the city. Not only its popularity with all classes, but the degree of propriety, civility, good order and decorum with which all classes meet and enjoy themselves in it, has far exceeded the most sanguine expectations of its original projectors and advocates.

The great and obvious need for a public ground of recreation in San Francisco—more obvious than it ever was in New York—will excuse the offer of a few observations on the subject in your columns.

It is understood that the city authorities as well as the citizens generally, are favorably disposed to the project, and that action would have been taken upon it before this, but for two reasons:

First. The financial condition of the city requires extraordinary caution in undertaking improvements which may involve large expenditure.

Second. The treeless, wind shorn and sandy suburbs of San Francisco offer no fair opportunity of forming a park.

The first is a reason for caution, and for caution, or cautious consideration, only; it is no reason for neglect. If a park is to be made for San Francisco at any time and to be within a convenient distance of the present populous part of the city, it is as certain as anything in the future can be that every year’s delay in acquiring land for it, and in determining the general plan, so that the grading of streets, the construction of railroads, or sewers, of buildings, the laying of gas and water pipes, etc., may be adapted to it, will greatly add to the expenditure which will be involved. Further than to determine its outline and general plan, and to guard against expenditures public and private, which its construction would make useless and wasteful, it is unnecessary to proceed at once. No matter how rapidly the work to be done may be prosecuted, generations yet to come are likely to receive greater benefit from it than the present. The larger part of the expenditure required may therefore properly be thrown far ahead. If there is ever to be a park, its cost will be far less if its boundaries and general plan are now determined than if this preliminary work continues to be neglected. If there is ever to be a park, it will be a saving and not an increase of expenditure to the city, therefore, to determine these preliminaries at once.

But there is every reason, in the experience of other cities, both in Europe and the United States, for believing that the increase in value [427]of the public resources which will result from the construction of a park, will more than compensate for its cost.

Among the sources of this increase of value caused by a park may be noted the following:

1. The rise in the value of real estate.

2. The retention of population which would otherwise move elsewhere to reside, particularly of citizens of wealth and large tax payers.

3. The attraction of population, particularly of wealthy citizens, to the city, which is caused by it.

4. The improved health and vigor of the population which is caused by it.

Upon each of these points the experience of the city of New York is significant.

Objections of the same character with those now under consideration were made and urged most strenuously against the project of the Central Park. Pathetic remonstrances were made to the Legislature against it by wealthy citizens, who publicly threatened to remove from the city on account of the danger of increased taxation which they believed the park to involve. The wealth of some of these citizens has since probably been much more than doubled by the formation of the park; and after an expenditure of over $8,000,000 upon it, an act was lately passed, without opposition, authorizing the construction of a promenade 7 miles in length, together with a large zoological garden, in addition to the 1,000 acres of land previously appropriated to public grounds within the city. The construction of a park in the principal suburb, of several hundred acres, has also been undertaken. To none of these measures do the tax-payers now present opposition. The simple reason for this change in their sentiments is the effect which has been produced by the construction of the Central Park upon the value of property, not alone in its vicinity, but for great distances on all sides of it. It has been officially stated that the increase in the value of taxable property, caused by the park, has already more than compensated for its enormous cost. The rise in the value of 3,000 lots fronting on the park, during a period of five years, is stated to have been at an average rate of 1,000 per cent., and this vast increase cannot be perceived to be at the expense of any other park of the city. On the contrary, the impulse caused by the park extended to all real estate in and near the city.

As to the second point, it is a well known fact that foreign merchants who had accumulated great fortunes in New York and had begun to make arrangements for moving to Europe to enjoy them, after the park came into use changed their mind, built dwellings in New York, [428]became naturalized citizens and settled down for life there with their families and fortunes—the park having, in the language of one of them, added the one thing needful to make New York compare favorably with European capitals as a place of permanent residence.

Upon the third point, the writer is personally informed of several men of wealth who were determined to leave their residences in the South and West and establish themselves in New York, by a visit to the park.

Upon the matter of improved health, Dr. Agnew of the Sanitary Commission has stated that not only among the poorer classes, but among the wealthy, and especially among the women and children, a marked improvement in health and vigor has occurred, which is to be directly traced to the influence of the park upon their habits. It is the established practice of the best physicians to order certain classes of their patients to spend a certain portion of each day in the park. There is no doubt that the park has added years to the lives of many of the most valued citizens, and many have remarked that it has much increased their working capacity.

As lately stated by a New York paper, most of the leaders of the bar of the city, of the Chamber of Commerce, of Wall street, and of every department of commerce, art and learning, are to be seen Quite as regularly every evening in the park as they are in the morning at their accustomed places of business. This would not be the case did they not find a great advantage to result from the practice. The number of carriages now driven daily on the park is usually (in summer) about 1,000, but on “music days” it is much greater. The largest number in any single day during the sixth year after the drives were commenced, and while they were yet incomplete, was 9,460. The largest number of saddle horses on any day was 1,640. The number of persons resorting to the park on foot, daily, in summer, is usually from 5,000 to 10,000, but on occasions it has risen to 100,000.

These facts show the enormous value of the park to the citizens, even while in an uncomplete state, and yet comparatively bare of trees. Its popularity has since been constantly increasing. The experience of other cities has been similar. There are already 3,000 acres of public grounds within the solidly built parts of London, and about 10,000 readily accessible to the citizens in its suburbs; yet experience satisfies the Londoners that it will be profitable to them to secure still more ground for recreation, in view of the probable enlargement of the city, and the last session of Parliament authorized the purchase of an extensive tract of suburban land for this purpose. Paris is following a similar policy. In our own country, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Brooklyn, Hartford, New Haven, St. Louis and Chicago, have each lately taken measures for securing a public pleasure ground.

[429]

Two facts may be referred to in illustration of the importance of early action in this matter and the bad economy of putting it off. Some years ago a merchant of St. Louis, afterwards Mayor of that city, urged upon its Common Council the purchase of a certain tract of land for a park, but owing to a similar consideration to that which prevents the city of San Francisco from now acquiring land for a park, his advice was disregarded. Since then the land in question has been to a large extent occupied by large manufactories and railroad works, and could not probably be obtained for a park at an advance of 100 per cent. upon the amount which it would then have cost. There is no other land near the city nearly as well adapted to the purpose. The delay of 10 years in determining upon the park of New York not only obliged it to be formed at a great distance from the populous part of the city, (six miles from the City Hall,) and upon land extremely difficult to be adapted to the purpose, but added at least $6,000,000 to the cost of the land finally selected.

There is no reason why the experience of San Francisco would not be similar to that of New York and St. Louis. On the contrary, the disadvantages of delay will obviously be relatively greater in San Francisco, because the difficulty of selecting ground on which it is practicable to form a park is greater in the suburbs of San Francisco than it was in either of those cities.

Citizens of San Francisco need a recreation ground and would be more benefitted by it than those of any other city of equal importance in the civilized world. Yet there is no other civilized city where such a provision has been so completely neglected. Those which may be most properly compared with it, Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and Victoria, have each already secured spacious public grounds.

It may be desirable that the manner in which the cost of constructing the Central Park is provided for, should be understood. Its whole management is in the hands of a special commission appointed by the Governor, and which consists chiefly of eminent merchants. On application from this Commission the Common Council of the city from time to time issues “Central Park Improvement Stock,” the money raised upon which is deposited to the credit of the Commission. This stock is redeemable in thirty years from the date of its issue, and the payment of the annual interest upon it is provided for by a special tax.

With regard to the objection that it is impracticable to form a park in the vicinity of San Francisco, it must be admitted that the attempt to form a park in the style of the Central Park or the parks of London and Paris, would be absurd. But it is an unreasonable assertion that a pleasure ground cannot be formed of sufficient length and breadth for an afternoon drive, ride or walk, free from dust and noise of the town, verdant, varied and dignified in character. That it would need to be of an original and quite peculiar style is probable, but this would be no objection [430]if the main purpose could be accomplished of establishing a place of healthful recreation, to which the citizens of San Francisco could with pleasure resort every day, as to a grand social exchange, where on public occasions large crowds could be assembled, interfering with no man’s business or pleasure elsewhere; where parades could be had without interrupting the business of the streets; where athletic sports, such as baseball, cricket, foot—ball, quoits, leaping and running races could be enjoyed without inconvenience to any; where women and children and the weak and convalescent could ramble without apprehension, and rest when fatigued without resorting to “saloons” or intrusion upon the hospitality of strangers. And this, though it would perhaps require much careful study to secure it, it is not unreasonable to believe is practicable. That the difficulties to be overcome can only increase with every year’s neglect of the question, is certain.