206 COMMISSION ON P.I'ILUING DISTRICTS 



( vent traffic is not the chief, much less the only consideration, in districting. 

 If the amount of land that could be or has been tentatively devoted to 

 industry were insufficient for such use, there would be more reason for this 

 provision in spite of the confusion it introduces in business districts. It is, 

 however, the general opinion that your Commission has been unable to 

 confine industry within areas sufficiently limited to avoid those sudden 

 changes which in the past have done us such injury. We therefore ask you 

 in reconsider this provision. 



Shops on ground floor of residential buildings 



In a former communication to your Commission we have already advo- 

 cated the creation of a fourth use class — that of shops on the ground floor, 

 with residences above. The employment of this use class, although it does 

 not remove all the objections to the "two-floor" provision, of which we 

 have just been treating, would remove many people from its evil effects. 

 We have also heretofore urged upon you the advisability of placing streets 

 near small parks in the residential use class. With this new classification 

 you will, in man)' cases where it would be difficult to apply the strictly resi- 

 dential classification, lie able to accomplish much the same results. The 

 plans which we have filed with you, showing in detail the present use of 

 buildings near certain typical parks, and the printed information of like 

 nature with regard to man)- other parks in the several boroughs which we 

 have been glad to furnish you, not only tend strongly to prove the possibility 

 and wisdom of this method of saving and increasing the usefulness of our 

 small parks, but also the expediency of creating and employing this fourth 

 use class in many other parts of the city. 



Criticism of tentative height and area provisions 



Let us now turn to your tentative height and area limitations. Here 

 again we are in general in hearty accord with you. We feel, however, that 

 here also the failure to remedy certain defects — as may be done without 

 departure from the principles ahead) laid down by yourselves and your 

 predecessors, tin Heights of Buildings Commission — would entail grave 

 consequences to the city for all time to come. 



Stated briefly, our criticism is that, with the possible exception of Man- 

 hattan, your districting in its allowance of height and area is so liberal as 

 t<> fail to accomplish the results which your report, your entire attitude 

 and the frame work of your plans themselves show that you wish to obtain. 



Does not your treatment of Brooklyn clearly illustrate the truth of this 

 statement? For instance, over large areas of Brooklyn you have allowed 

 buildings to be constructed to a height equal to one and one-half times the 

 width of the streets on which the\- are to be erected. < )n a typical 60- foot 

 street this is the equivalent of eight or nine stories. But, with the probable 

 exception of the Heights, Park Slope, and perhaps Eastern Parkway, ami 

 of course the Borough Hal! district, the waterfront and a Few other indus- 

 trial districts, the present development in Brooklyn — always excepting ter- 

 ribly congested Williamsburg, with its six stories — is three or four-story 

 tenements, or one and two-family houses. 



It may be true— indei d we are inclined to think it is — that height other- 

 wise excessive m;n l>" allowed if in compensation area is sufficiently limited. 

 This, which it would seem that your Commission intended to do, you have 

 not in fact accomplished. For instance, but for Section 19 of your resolu- 

 tions, which brings in the existing tenement house area limitation of seventy 

 per cent, a five or six-story building in a C district on a 50 by 100 foot lot 



