DISTRICTING 59 



disintegrate the values. When the city places restrictions over a sec- 

 tion, these apply to all properties, with the result that there imme- 

 diately begins a more permanent development along the lines for 

 which the section is to be used, and properties increase in value. 



" We have given too much weight to the ideas surrounding geo- 

 graphical location and have not considered seriously the idea that the 

 value of property depends upon the degree to which a certain section 

 is developed for a certain use. Values appreciate in sections where it 

 is known that the development is to be maintained along definite and 

 well established lines. For instance, the values in office building sec- 

 tions are dependent upon the degree of the development of that sec- 

 tion for that particular use. This idea holds in loft, factory and resi- 

 dential sections, shopping districts, and the like, and experience has 

 taught us that as soon as new elements are introduced into these 

 sections of a nature tending to lower the standard of the section, 

 the values of the properties are correspondingly reduced. There is 

 no economy in the present method of continually shifting geograph- 

 ically the various interests of the city. We should rather foster the 

 idea of developing various sections for a particular use and place a 

 premium upon the erection of permanent, well designed structures 

 within that section, to be used for that particular purpose for which 

 the section is restricted." 



Height Districts in American Cities 



The chief American examples of districting as applied to the height 

 of buildings are furnished by Boston, Baltimore, Indianapolis and Wash- 

 ington. 



Boston 



In Boston the entire city has been divided into two districts — District 

 A and District B. In District A, the business section of the city, buildings 

 may not exceed 125 feet in height. In District B, the residential area of 

 the city, buildings may not exceed 80 feet in height except on thoroughfares 

 over 64 feet in width. On such streets, buildings may be erected to a height 

 equal to 1% times the width of the street, but no buildings in District B 

 may be erected to a greater height than 80 feet unless its width on each 

 and every abutting public street is at least one-half of its height. No build- 

 ing, however, in either District A or District B may be of greater height 

 than 2j^ times the width of the widest abutting street. This districting 

 has been done under authority of a special aqt of the legislature through 

 the agency of a commission appointed for the purpose. The regulations, 

 which are considered in detail in Appendix IV, have been upheld by the 

 highest court, both of the State and of the United States. 



In regard to the constitutionality of districting, the Massachusetts 

 court 1 points out that any police regulation must be reasonable " not only 



"Welch vs. Swasey, 193 Mass., 364; 79 N. E., 745, January 1, 1907. 



