148 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS 



Statement by Sam A. Lewisohn, of Adolph Lewisohn & Sons, March 



24. 1916 

 Need for districting 



Many of us who have been giving our attention to municipal matters 

 have regarded the work of your Commission in providing for height and use 

 zones for the city as probably the most important piece of constructive work 

 for the city's progress that has been carried out in the last decade. The dis- 

 tricting plan as I understand it is merely a provision for " enforced co- 

 operation." Anyone, like myself, who has followed real estate for even a 

 short number of years realizes what a fundamental need the districting plan 

 is, both as it applies to the heights and cubage of buildings and to the use 

 for which the building is to be built, and how we have suffered in the past 

 for the lack of such a plan. Irretrievable harm has indeed been done not 

 only to the health and comfort of the community, but to real estate values 

 themselves by the absence of such a system as is contemplated. Well 

 recognized examples are the useless deterioration of certain parts of the 

 city by erratic changes in use, the building up of skyscrapers to shut out each 

 others' light and air. and the invasion of residential districts by skyscrapers 

 on the one hand and by undesirable commercial establishments on the other. 



Statement by Sam A. Lewisohn, of Adolph Lewisohn & Sons, Man 



1, 1916 



Restrictions too liberal 



I have personally been very much interested in the work of your Com- 

 mission, and was very glad indeed to write you expressing my belief that the 

 work you are doing is as important a piece of work as has been carried 

 forward in this city for the past decade. Upon studying your tentative 

 plans, however, much as I have been impressed by the devotion and thor- 

 oughness with which you have approached this difficult task, still I feel, as 

 do many others, much disappointed over the fact that the liberality of your 

 allowance on height and area is such as to render it doubtful whether the 

 hoped for results will be obtained. 



I have read with interest the memorandum submitted to you by the 

 Committee on City Planning of the City Club of New York. I fully concur 

 with most of the suggestions contained therein, particularly with reference 

 to the stricter provisions for districts other than Manhattan, especially the 

 Brooklyn and Queens districts, which are still to be developed. As one who 

 is interested in property in such districts, particularly in the outlying districts 

 of Queens, I can assure you that in the end real estate holders will welcome 

 provisions that will force a type of building which will have a slighter 

 resemblance to the old type tenement ; in other words, the substitution of D 

 districts for most of the B and C districts and the establishment in a large- 

 part of the borough of districts more restricted than are 1) districts. ( hue 

 the temptation to follow in the rut of the old-fashioned tenement is removed, 

 the landlord will reap the benefit in the larger rents which will accrue in 

 a district developed in the more enlightened way. From my study of the 

 tentative report of your Committee I fear greatly that even the D provi- 

 sions will permit a type of building that will differ but very slightly from 

 certain tvpes of tenements already objectionable. Many of us who look 

 to the outlying districts for developing an improved and more enlightened 

 tvpe of dwelling for the less wealthy members of our community feel thai 

 such a result would he a calamity, particularly as once such a type of 

 dwelling is established it will be impossible to change the regulations, and 



